457 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvianus]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Yes we must be careful. And arguments were cited repeatedly for months about this system. Obviously, there are more points about that. But using examples has always been part of the basis of the argument. Without examples, how would we do to validate our points?

We really don't know if the silent protagonist is something that is no longer seen as modern, not like it ? Those who say it's antiquated, also use examples, also statements based on their own thoughts.

His views about Skyrim must not be taken to the absolute level in my opinion. It is obvious that Bioware must first be consistent with its own vision. I am for a voiced protagonist but not sure why you'd react to that .

Simply, this may simply contradict the absolute conviction that a silent protagonist, is definitely something of the past, or totally borring for almost everybody.

This brings up another point: What does the voiced protagonist has to offer more, or the silent protagonist can offer more? Apart from this claim that the silent protagonist is something of the past ?
 
I think Skyrim, can reinforce fairly this thought, that it doesn't bother that much, to each its opinion. Other aren't convinced, in no games we will know what exactly is liked or not liked. We don't even know for DA2 and DAO. We can only think and debate and use examples.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 janvier 2012 - 11:18 .

[Addai]

Wulfram wrote...

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

No it didn't?  It made marginal gameplay improvements and carried on the same story and visual mantle. 

[Sylvianus]

I am not sure what are the radical changes from Oblivion. I feel that Skyrim  is an oblivion improved in many areas, with more content. But that's just me.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 janvier 2012 - 06:34 .

[Addai]

That's me, too, Sylvianus. I don't see a lot of discontinuity between Oblivion and Skyrim at all.

As for silent vs. voiced protagonist, Bioware is not going to go back to the first because their whole vision for their games is to be cinematic. What I do hope is that they leave off the nonsense about "no one likes the silent protagonist" because that was a dumb marketing argument to begin with. You didn't need Skyrim to see that, just Fallout 3 or FNV. As long as they stick to a more moderate "voiced PC works better for what we want in our games," it's fine. For me the voiced/ silent PC is probably the line between a game I can love and live in and one that's a temporary diversion, but at least I'd like not to be dismissed as a fossil for what is really just a preference in storytelling mode.

[Sylvianus]

Addai67 wrote...

That's me, too, Sylvianus. I don't see a lot of discontinuity between Oblivion and Skyrim at all.

As for silent vs. voiced protagonist, Bioware is not going to go back to the first because their whole vision for their games is to be cinematic. What I do hope is that they leave off the nonsense about "no one likes the silent protagonist" because that was a dumb marketing argument to begin with. You didn't need Skyrim to see that, just Fallout 3 or FNV. As long as they stick to a more moderate "voiced PC works better for what we want in our games," it's fine. For me the voiced/ silent PC is probably the line between a game I can love and live in and one that's a temporary diversion, but at least I'd like not to be dismissed as a fossil for what is really just a preference in storytelling mode.

I agree totally.

Otherwise, I prefer a voiced protagonist but I like also the silent protagonist, respect those who prefer a silent protagonist and see why they prefer that. I don't think at all that for the future, the silent protagonist is useless.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 janvier 2012 - 07:18 .

[Wulfram]

Addai67 wrote...

No it didn't?  It made marginal gameplay improvements and carried on the same story and visual mantle. 

They scrapped classes, attributes, custom spells.  They added perks.  They revamped how skills leveled up.  They made power attacks actually useful.  Really, it's a far more significant set of changes to gameplay than DA2.  Just a lot better carried out.

Visually, I'd have to say Skyrim changed more too.  Actually, I think it did what DA2 was supposed to do - it's quite distinctive while Oblivion was pretty generic.  And both had uglified "distinctive" elves, though Skyrim's managed to keep more dignity at least

Story, well it's difficult to say.  I don't think either of them did much new - DA2 made a few half hearted gestures in that direction, but things like the framed narrative and the extended timespan ended up amounted to practically nothing and the story ended up as the standard "Hero finds bunch of companions, kills bad guys with them" sort of thing.

[Addai]

Wulfram wrote...
They scrapped classes, attributes, custom spells.  They added perks.  They revamped how skills leveled up.  They made power attacks actually useful.  Really, it's a far more significant set of changes to gameplay than DA2.  Just a lot better carried out.

I don't think so.  I always made a custom class in Oblivion anyway, and attributes are still there, they are just reduced down to the basics.  All Skyrim does is make how I played Oblivion more official.  It still feels the same to play a battle mage in Skyrim as it did in Oblivion, barring custom spellmaking which I agree was a loss.  Whereas DA2 felt like an entirely different game, particularly for dual wield rogue which was my 2nd favorite build in Origins and simply unplayable in DA2.

Visually, I'd have to say Skyrim changed more too.  Actually, I think it did what DA2 was supposed to do - it's quite distinctive while Oblivion was pretty generic.  And both had uglified "distinctive" elves, though Skyrim's managed to keep more dignity at least

For Skyrim the elf changes were going back to earlier games, as I understood it.  Otherwise the visuals are much the same, just obviously keyed to the Nords.  Bruma in Oblivion had a lot of the same visuals as Skyrim does.  The graphics are improved, so it's more detailed and moving a picture than Oblivion was, but the basic look is still the same.

I mean, are you really arguing that they did not completely revamp the look of Dragon Age?  They've even said they did, so you're going against the devs' own words. 

[Wulfram]

Addai67 wrote...

I don't think so.  I always made a custom class in Oblivion anyway, and attributes are still there, they are just reduced down to the basics.  All Skyrim does is make how I played Oblivion more official.  It still feels the same to play a battle mage in Skyrim as it did in Oblivion, barring custom spellmaking which I agree was a loss.  Whereas DA2 felt like an entirely different game, particularly for dual wield rogue which was my 2nd favorite build in Origins and simply unplayable in DA2.

You still had a class in previous Elder Scrolls games, even if it was a custom class.  Which had a pretty big impact on gameplay - even if it was rather unintuitive, with you actually being better off if you gained skills which weren't class skills.  Actually, this might be the first one in a while that I won't be searching for a mod that revamps the levelling system.

For a battle mage, surely the ability to mix spell and weapon, or two different spells, or dual cast is a quite noticable change?

Dual wield rogue was quite different from origins before the latest patch I guess, but now that they no longer fall over in a stiff breeze I don't think it's a huge difference.  Closing moves is the big one.

If there's a difference it is that by and large Bethesda's changes worked well, so they don't bug you and thus don't register very much.  Whereas something like the waves in DA2 should be a really pretty minor change, but was implemented utterly hamhandedly.  And from what you've said I guess the developers didn't feel the need to diss their previous game - though I'd argue there was much about Oblivion's mechanics which deserved dissing.

For Skyrim the elf changes were going back to earlier games, as I understood it.  Otherwise the visuals are much the same, just obviously keyed to the Nords.  Bruma in Oblivion had a lot of the same visuals as Skyrim does.  The graphics are improved, so it's more detailed and moving a picture than Oblivion was, but the basic look is still the same.

I don't recall any armour like this in previous Elder Scrolls games, for example

.(Don't give me that look Synnoeve, it's just for illustration)

More generally, the colour usage seems quite distinct.  Though I suppose all the white is pretty inevitable.

Of course, they've never been all that shy about switching things around.  There's a big jump from Daggerfall to Morrowind and from Morrowind to Oblivion.

I mean, are you really arguing that they did not completely revamp the look of Dragon Age?  They've even said they did, so you're going against the devs' own words. 

They very much overhyped the graphical changes, yes.  They even re-used a lot of the items pretty much in their entirety.

Modifié par Wulfram, 04 janvier 2012 - 08:14 .

[Addai]

Wulfram wrote...
For a battle mage, surely the ability to mix spell and weapon, or two different spells, or dual cast is a quite noticable change?

It's been a while since I played Oblivion so maybe my memory is fuzzy, but no.  I played a battle mage basically the same way in Oblivion as I do in Skyrim- firing off ranged spells then switching to weapon when enemies close.

Dual wield rogue was quite different from origins before the latest patch I guess, but now that they no longer fall over in a stiff breeze I don't think it's a huge difference.  Closing moves is the big one.

The main difference for me is the aesthetic.  I just can't play the chipmunk on crack.  Even the archer was quite different, more like a mage due to... it's so weird even typing it out... the area of effect attacks.

And from what you've said I guess the developers didn't feel the need to diss their previous game - though I'd argue there was much about Oblivion's mechanics which deserved dissing.

I just was always confused when the devs spoke about Origins.  Like they were playing a different game than I was.  The things they criticized and thought were crucial to change were things I either didn't have an issue with (the shuffle... I'm still not sure what they're talking about) or they were things I liked, such as silent protagonist, flexible classes and being able to change companions' armor.

Bethesda is honest about the problems in Oblivion, but the things they point out I could actually relate to as faults of the game.  Like the classes and leveling not making intuitive sense. I read about a dev who talked to a friend of his that was struggling with his character in Oblivion.  Turned out the friend had used one of the "pre-made" classes, and the dev told him (I'm sure tongue in cheek) "no, you were supposed to just know those are useless." 

I don't recall any armour like this in previous Elder Scrolls games, for example

Heh.  I think they were looking at mods and trying to accommadate the godawful stuff from the Nexus for the console players.

More generally, the colour usage seems quite distinct.  Though I suppose all the white is pretty inevitable.

I guess Oblivion was a lot of green and purple?  I don't think that's a bad change.  The overall feel of the aesthetic is the same- a lush, rich, moving world.  DA2 was just stripped down and ugly, with plastic faces and not even a pretense of realism.  I realize some people like a stylized look, for me it is alienating.

[maxernst]

I think the reason Skyrim's changes don't feel all that significant to me is that they haven't touched anything that I would say defines the Elder Scrolls as a series: it's still a big open world with pretty graphics, very little narrative drive and a real time, somewhat action-oriented combat system. Graphics changes are cosmetic and to be expected in games made five years apart. The class system is more of the metagame--once you've made your choice, it's something you don't really think about anymore. Both Oblivion and Skyrim characters are primarily defined by your skills and the way the perks are tied to the skill system, they're more of an additional focus on the skill than an entirely different kind of ability. And besides, everybody knew that the class/leveling system in Oblivion was horribly broken.

As far as I'm concerned, what made DA:O special (and really has been the salient feature of Bioware games since BG) was your PC's interaction with the companion characters. That aspect of the game feels almost entirely different in DA2 because of the friendship/rivalry system, the voiced Hawke, and the accursed dialogue wheel which managed to be even worse than in Mass Effect. DA2 made radical changes to what I consider the core of the DA:O experience.

Modifié par maxernst, 04 janvier 2012 - 10:55 .

[Wulfram]

I think we agree on rather a lot.  Skyrim did a good job of changing or removing stuff that was broken or added little to the game and adding stuff that was good.  While DA2 changed or removed stuff that was working pretty well, and added stuff that often didn't work great.

Addai67 wrote...
I guess Oblivion was a lot of green and purple?  I don't think that's a bad change.  The overall feel of the aesthetic is the same- a lush, rich, moving world.  DA2 was just stripped down and ugly, with plastic faces and not even a pretense of realism.  I realize some people like a stylized look, for me it is alienating.

I'm not really artistically knowledgable enough to talk about this comprehensively, but Skyrim often seems to be almost monochrome, with other colours faded or restrained.  Starting with the box itself, and the menu screen, this gives the game a consistent style that works great - with appropriate variations for some types of dungeon of course.

From what the devs were saying, that's the sort of thing which was supposed to happen with DA2, but in the end it doesn't seem to really.  Instead it was a bit of a mess.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

ADelusiveMan wrote...

I do not want a silent protagonist. Making Hawke speak was a step in the right direction.

I have to agree. A silent protagonist without an in-game reason why s/he is silient is HUGE step backwards. It just barely works Skyrim and IMHO it looks stupid to have an NPC essentionaly having a one-sided conversation with a silent character. 

[Wulfram]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

I have to agree. A silent protagonist without an in-game reason why s/he is silient is HUGE step backwards. It just barely works Skyrim and IMHO it looks stupid to have an NPC essentionaly having a one-sided conversation with a silent character. 

I guess it depends on how you read.  For me, the PCs line is already sounded out in my head when I decide to choose, so the conversation seems quite natural with a silent PC.

Skyrim perhaps doesn't work as well as DA:O in this for me, because the PCs written dialogue is so sparse.  Which often makes it seem more like the NPC is monologueing rather than there being an actual dialogue.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

ADelusiveMan wrote...

I do not want a silent protagonist. Making Hawke speak was a step in the right direction.

I have to agree. A silent protagonist without an in-game reason why s/he is silient is HUGE step backwards. It just barely works Skyrim and IMHO it looks stupid to have an NPC essentionaly having a one-sided conversation with a silent character. 

But none has ever manage to work out Voice Protagonist without trying to define the character. That's one huge problem that still plague voice protagonist. It isn't much an issue for defined character but it restrictes role-play for player created character. 

I don't have much problem with Hawke's voice. Male Hawke's voice is pretty much very close to what I want compared to male Sheppard.  I still can treat him as my player avatar. But It's acting quality and emotion/body language expression shown through cinematic approach that instantly kill my role-play. Just like Sheppard acting and expression kill my roleplay in ME 2. Hawke try to act like Sheppard. Same smiling expression same body language same acting style.... Sarcastic Hawke acts more like Ace Ventura and I'm not a huge fan of Ace Ventura's clownlike comedy acting.

Unless developer allow me how to act MY PLAYER CHARACTER and not observe their character to roleplay, then Voice Protagonist has nothing to impress.  It's still as primitive as Morse Code for communication.

EDIT: If BioWare thinks voice acting and cinematic approach is their main selling point then D2 didn't materialize it. Therefore, something must be wrong. Movie does not success based on story alone. It's based on actor as well.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 05 janvier 2012 - 12:46 .

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
Skyrim has all that and still manages to be a real nuts and bolts RPG.  That's how badly DA2 failed.

My argument is that the "nuts and bolts RPG" part is not the relevant part. At least, again, in my experience with others.

I really dislike the time of gameplay that Skyrim offers, so I'm too biased to ever judge the game fairly. That's why I brought up what I did.

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.

I don't think it's that. Skyrim brought the scalpel to the table and made some serious simplifying changes, from what I hear. There was a lot of online criticism for it. It just happened to be the criticism that DA:O faced and the fan reaction was the reaction to DA:O, and not the one to DA2.

By the sound of it you weren't here for DA:O's lead up to release, but everything went down exactly like DA2's lead up. Just substitute BG2 for DA:O, and issues like "The origins will destory roleplay by preventing me from making any character I want!" "I can't kill any NPC? No perma-death? Regenerating health and mana!?" 

DA2 wasn't a good game, and it had some insane design decisions. But that's not really the lesson to learn, because Bioware learned the opposite lesson from DA:O's release.

Modifié par In Exile, 05 janvier 2012 - 12:59 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Kirkwall was sooooooooo empty and frozen 

Agreed!

Should have add more functions to the city like GTA. I don't know something like arena for gladiators just for me to bash some weak fools, brothels with hookers oopss! I mean "wenchs",  mount animals for racing, theaters/ochestra, public baths ala roman stye, private showcase featuring desire demons ( Yummy! ), fireworks, etc....

In a large city like Kirkwall surely there have to be some sort of entertainment for people to relieve their stress after their daily routines. I don't  believe all Kirkwall are so well mannered like monks when there're thugs all over the place at night. 

Just add more creativity and imagination and Kirkwall should sparks with life. 

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
As for silent vs. voiced protagonist, Bioware is not going to go back to the first because their whole vision for their games is to be cinematic. What I do hope is that they leave off the nonsense about "no one likes the silent protagonist" because that was a dumb marketing argument to begin with. You didn't need Skyrim to see that, just Fallout 3 or FNV. As long as they stick to a more moderate "voiced PC works better for what we want in our games," it's fine. For me the voiced/ silent PC is probably the line between a game I can love and live in and one that's a temporary diversion, but at least I'd like not to be dismissed as a fossil for what is really just a preference in storytelling mode.

But the opposite argument, that many people like it based on FO or TES is as bad as what Bioware does. It's like saying that you like PC VO because you bought an ME game.

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
But none has ever manage to work out Voice Protagonist without trying to define the character. That's one huge problem that still plague voice protagonist. It isn't much an issue for defined character but it restrictes role-play for player created character. 

I've tried to avoid jumping back into the VO fray, but since this thread is going in that direction...

... insofar as player control is concerned, there's absolutely no more freedom in dialogue with or without VO. The intent of the line is identical in both cases. The way it is understood and delivered is identical. The meaning is identical. All you can say about a silent PC is that you can imagine the tone, and by tone I mean the melody and pitch of the words being delivered. Everything else is predetermined for you by the context.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
But none has ever manage to work out Voice Protagonist without trying to define the character. That's one huge problem that still plague voice protagonist. It isn't much an issue for defined character but it restrictes role-play for player created character. 

I've tried to avoid jumping back into the VO fray, but since this thread is going in that direction...

... insofar as player control is concerned, there's absolutely no more freedom in dialogue with or without VO. The intent of the line is identical in both cases. The way it is understood and delivered is identical. The meaning is identical. All you can say about a silent PC is that you can imagine the tone, and by tone I mean the melody and pitch of the words being delivered. Everything else is predetermined for you by the context.

That's not the issue In Exile ( at least not for me although I still have problem with broken tones ) . Whatever the tones is just voice presentation. Like you said melody and pitch. It's hardly affect character personality. What's affect character personality is the manner associoted  with that tones. For example, how people sit reflect how they behave. Polite people don't just lean on their back and cross legged. It's doesn't give nice impression for the interviewers. There're type of smile. Bitter smile, sweet smile, happy smile etc... all this has different meaning. Each can be intrepeted in different way according to different situation. A mother who lost her child will not smile happily. She would most likely smile in different manner to reflect her sorrow.. Even when you drink, you behave accordingly. All this are part of communication too and mostly work in conjuction with verbal communication.

It disturbed me to see Hawke suddenly goes out smiling cheerfully after 5 minutes mourning her mother's death and then talking as if nothing happen to her.  If I perceived my character as cheerful type then it's won't bother me. But I don't.

Therefore, there must be some control to allow player to direct their actor on how to "behave" or act properly. Because without those controls, it's like giving up roleplay.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 05 janvier 2012 - 06:07 .

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
For example, how people sit reflect how they behave. Polite people don't just lean on their back and cross legged. It's doesn't give nice impression for the interviewers. There're type of smile. Bitter smile, sweet smile, happy smile etc... all this has different meaning. Each can be intrepeted in different way according to different situation. A mother who lost his child will not smile happily. She would most likely smile in different manner to reflect her sorrow.. Even when you drink, you behave accordingly. All this are part of communication too and mostly work in conjuction with verbal communication.

Absolutely. I agree with you entirely here. Where we disagree is on whether

It disturbed me to see Hawke suddenly goes out smiling cheerfully after 5 minutes mourning her mother's death and then talking as if nothing happen to her.  If I perceived my character as cheerful type then it's won't bother me. But I don't.

The thing is, that's just the dialogue and game design. The game just sweeps the death under the rug and moves on. DA:O was the same way with the Cousland Warden.

Therefore, there must be some control to allow player to direct their actor on how to "behave" or act properly. Because without those controls, it's like giving up roleplay.

I agree with you entirely. But I think the way to do that is to create more involved action dialogues that are paired up with the dialogue choice, in the sense that we can pick animations as well as dialogue. Just having a fade to black when the PC speaks doesn't solv the problem.

[Il Divo]

Sylvianus wrote...

Yes we must be careful. And arguments were cited repeatedly for months about this system. Obviously, there are more points about that. But using examples has always been part of the basis of the argument. Without examples, how would we do to validate our points?

We really don't know if the silent protagonist is something that is no longer seen as modern, not like it ? Those who say it's antiquated, also use examples, also statements based on their own thoughts.

His views about Skyrim must not be taken to the absolute level in my opinion. It is obvious that Bioware must first be consistent with its own vision. I am for a voiced protagonist but not sure why you'd react to that .

Simply, this may simply contradict the absolute conviction that a silent protagonist, is definitely something of the past, or totally borring for almost everybody.

This brings up another point: What does the voiced protagonist has to offer more, or the silent protagonist can offer more? Apart from this claim that the silent protagonist is something of the past ?
 
I think Skyrim, can reinforce fairly this thought, that it doesn't bother that much, to each its opinion. Other aren't convinced, in no games we will know what exactly is liked or not liked. We don't even know for DA2 and DAO. We can only think and debate and use examples.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that Skyrim shouldn't be used as an example, but I think it needs to be made applicable in a clear manner.

Skyrim's silent protagonist shouldn't be a potential model for future games simply because the game was successful; plenty of GOTY-winning games have had a few qualities which were less than spectacular. We can't really say if the silent protagonist or the dialogue itself really played a role in driving Skyrim's success. We could reference Ocarina of Time as a great example for Bioware to follow since it's also sold millions, but I don't think people would want Bioware to implement a companion character like Navi or Water Temple dungeon, two of OoT's most criticized elements. That's where making arguments to add certain features based only on sales inevitably brings us.

I think instead it would be better to emphasize why players think that the silent protagonist worked in a game like Skyrim, rather than citing it as a desired element based on sales figures.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 janvier 2012 - 06:25 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

But I think the way to do that is to create more involved action dialogues that are paired up with the dialogue choice, in the sense that we can pick animations as well as dialogue. Just having a fade to black when the PC speaks doesn't solv the problem.

Yes, that is what I've been anticipating for years. Ever since FF7 adopted cinematic approach, I always thought to myself, it would be nice if I could direct Cloud Strife's acting in dialogue's cutscene to make him mine. But no one seem to be doing it.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 05 janvier 2012 - 06:51 .

[Urazz]

Pleasureslave wrote...

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.

Actually, silent protaganists don't have nearly as many options as you would think.  Alot of the options you get are the investigate choices you get with the speaking protaganist.  Some of the other conversation options are also pretty much lead to the same thing but just are being said differently.  If anything, I'd say the Silent Protaganist only has like 25% more actual choices that aren't redundant or investigate options

HiroVoid wrote...

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

Skyrim is a whole different game than Bioware's games.  Bioware does more cinematic themed type RPGs now where it's partly watching the story as well.  Silent protaganists will go against that.  Dragon Age: Origins had that flaw with the Warden pretty much being a mute zombie with very little physical reaction.

[LobselVith8]

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.

I agree. I don't think giving Hawke a voice really did anything, except have the protagonist say something completely different than the line of dialogue I chose for him to say.

yaw wrote...

@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?

Actually, this is pretty much what the developers of Origins said when they discussed why they weren't going to have a voiced PC.