457 réponses à ce sujet

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Morroian wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I can't speak for everyone but I can speak for my Warden. I imagine my warden's response. Not only sound but complete with facial expression and body language. There is no such thing as "blank stare and emotionless" character for my warden. He is as much alive as any voice actor given. Far better because he can be my player avatar. Just because you don't see such expression doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you see wall of text in novels, I see forest as narrated by wall of texts. That imagination.

Problem with Hawke, however, developer only provide you with sound ( verbal communication ) but never give  control over emotion, facial and body expression ( non verbal communication ). Hawke has one part of communication but loose the other part to AI. This disturb me as Character personality is not solely determined by sound but also by how he response. And response is not about sound only. It's about non verbal expression too. Yes you can see forest in the picture but that's not the kind of forest I intrepret. Also paraphrasing makes it's harder to intrepret. And because it's not the same forest, therefore I can not imagine but just follow whatever the picture shows whether I like it or not. That's not imagination. 

Edit: Unless the developer can find a way how to incorporate non verbal expression into dialgue, I can't never make any character as much as I love my warden and my dragonborn. So I'm still waiting for the day I can truly roleplay my voiced actors complete with his emotions and body expression. And not just sound. 

You say its not about sound but also non verbal expression yet you can ignore what is going on onscreen in DAO, the 1000 yard stare and emotionless expression is right in front of you, what do you turn away? If you can ignore that lack of expression why can't you do the same with VO? 

There is no 1000 yard stare and emotionless expression.

What in front of me is alive person who suffer hardship during his life. A person who look upon the road with nothing but image of the death of his father and mother. There is no word can describe how devastate he is. Every night he sleeps he only sees Rendon Howe. The face of his family murderer He clutches his teeth trying to calm himself. But the nighs are never peaceful. How could he rest?    

That's what in front of me in DAO.

The stare and emotion expression in DA 2 is not my stare and emotion expression. 

I see a person and yet I see a different person. I see emotion and yet I feel nothing. I choose to talk and yet I never open my mouth. I hear the voice and yet I don't hear my words. I see words and yet I don't know what it means. That is how I see what in front of me in DA 2. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 06 janvier 2012 - 03:47 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Aaleel wrote...

I think the problem was that Bioware thought Origins wouldn't do well.  You figure DA2 has been out what 10 months.  Origins just turned 2 years old in Nov.  That just blows my mind every time I think of it.

By the time Origins proved to be the success it was, they would have already been some months into DA2 development.  They had already decided most of these changes before any fan feedback or sales numbers, but by then it was probably too late to do a 180 of the fundemental things they had decided to to do with DA2.  Knowles talked about his problem with the new direction months before Origins even hit the shelves.

The course had already been set.

After a mere ten weeks of sales, (really before even then DA:O was a huge success judging by the initial sales, customer feedback, and reviews) Bioware/EA knew what type of success they'd had with Origins.  At that time the devs were working on DLC and Awakenings.  I doubt they were so far into the development of DA 2 they could not have turned it around.  More likely they were in the initial planning phases.

I think regardless of how well Origins did, Bioware/EA had decided come hell or high water, they were turning the Dragon Age series into something they believed to be more modern and more palatable for a greater number of people because 4.8M was not enough copies.  They wanted COD numbers.  They locked onto that idea, and never really considered the consequences of failing and shattering their customer base.

Which is exactly what they did judging by what I've seen.

Modifié par google_calasade, 06 janvier 2012 - 03:48 .

[Aaleel]

google_calasade wrote...

After a mere ten weeks of sales, (really before even then DA:O was a huge success judging by the initial sales, customer feedback, and reviews) Bioware/EA knew what type of success they'd had with Origins.  At that time the devs were working on DLC and Awakenings.  I doubt they were so far into the development of DA 2 they could not have turned it around.  More likely they were in the initial planning phases.

I think regardless of how well Origins did, Bioware/EA had decided come hell or high water, they were turning the Dragon Age series into something they believed to be more modern and more palatable for a greater number of people because 4.8M was not enough copies.  They wanted COD numbers.  They locked onto that idea, and never really considered the consequences of failing and shattering their customer base.

Which is exactly what they did judging by what I've seen.

Well this is basically what I said.  They had already made up their minds and it had nothing to do with Origins reception or sales. 

But you figure Knowles wrote his blog about not liking the new direction in the Summer.  I remember EA put out an article in Feb that said Origins had gone over triple platinum, and how many game of the year awards it won.  That would have been like 8 months from when they started talking about DA2's direction, and less than a year before the DA2 demo came out.

But I also saw an article where they said their goal was 10 million in sales also.

[Tyloric]

I didn't think DA2 was a spectacular failure... I preferred a vocal main character. D:

[Morroian]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

There is no 1000 yard stare and emotionless expression.

What in front of me is alive person who suffer hardship during his life. A person who look upon the road with nothing but image of the death of his father and mother. There is no word can describe how devastate he is. Every night he sleeps he only sees Rendon Howe. The face of his family murderer He clutches his teeth trying to calm himself. But the nighs are never peaceful. How could he rest?    

That's what in front of me in DAO.

No it isn't that is in your mind.

[Morroian]

google_calasade wrote...

Silverman, the Doctors, and Laidlaw all made some pretty bad statements, especially Laidlaw when responding to how DA 2 was not well received by game buyers, so I'm unsure really why you would have a hard time believing it was Laidlaw.  Him, Silverman, or the Doctors makes no difference.  It was still said.

Difference is SIlverman has nothing to do with development and the Doctors say a lot of stuff that should not be taken seriously whereas Mike is in direct change of development.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Morroian wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

There is no 1000 yard stare and emotionless expression.

What in front of me is alive person who suffer hardship during his life. A person who look upon the road with nothing but image of the death of his father and mother. There is no word can describe how devastate he is. Every night he sleeps he only sees Rendon Howe. The face of his family murderer He clutches his teeth trying to calm himself. But the nighs are never peaceful. How could he rest?    

That's what in front of me in DAO.

No it isn't that is in your mind.

Isn't that what we are talking about? Imagination.

DA 2 has no imagination. Only pictures and sounds but no feeling. No depth. Without imagination, role-play is meaningless. It's only story and yet it is never about you..

[DreamwareStudio]

Morroian wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

Silverman, the Doctors, and Laidlaw all made some pretty bad statements, especially Laidlaw when responding to how DA 2 was not well received by game buyers, so I'm unsure really why you would have a hard time believing it was Laidlaw.  Him, Silverman, or the Doctors makes no difference.  It was still said.

Difference is SIlverman has nothing to do with development and the Doctors say a lot of stuff that should not be taken seriously whereas Mike is in direct change of development.

It does not matter who said it.  I no more divide them than I do Bioware from EA.  They are the same entity, the same voice, and held collectively responsible for fault when appropriate just as they are collectively given credit when it is due.

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

[twincast]

Morroian wrote...

Difference is SIlverman has nothing to do with development and the Doctors say a lot of stuff that should not be taken seriously whereas Mike is in direct change of development.

And this makes it less likely for him to have said that how exactly? If anything, this makes it more likely.

And I believe it was even repeated by a number of BW people on these boards (some devs, some not) when defending/reasoning the new direction (on voiced PC in this case) after the initial appearance in some interview.

edit:

google_calasade wrote...

It does not matter who said it.  I no more divide them than I do Bioware from EA.  They are the same entity, the same voice, and held collectively responsible for fault when appropriate just as they are collectively given credit when it is due.

And this.

Modifié par twincast, 06 janvier 2012 - 04:39 .

[Morroian]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Isn't that what we are talking about? Imagination.

So whats the game there for? Just play the whole thing out in your mind. I still don't see how you can ignore whats onscreen in DAO but decry DA2 for poor visual expression.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Morroian wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Isn't that what we are talking about? Imagination.

So whats the game there for? Just play the whole thing out in your mind. I still don't see how you can ignore whats onscreen in DAO but decry DA2 for poor visual expression.

Because my friend Morroain, back in the days of the wise Elders or RPG greybeards, role-play is not about visual presentation only. It's about creativity and imagination. The essence of role-play. The soul of character. Your character. How you shape your destiny. How you play your role. How you journey the world. How you walk, breath the air and feel is entirely up to you. Story, animation, sounds and graphics only serve as platform, guide and world for you. It's never meant to take away your imagination and creativity. Because if you play for the story, you get the story only. You don't capture the dragon souls and manifest it's power. Oops! I mean you can never enjoy roleplay to it's potiential limit because you don't have the soul to live with it.  

[Morroian]

google_calasade wrote...

It does not matter who said it.  I no more divide them than I do Bioware from EA.  They are the same entity, the same voice, and held collectively responsible for fault when appropriate just as they are collectively given credit when it is due.

Of course it matters if you want to determine the creative direction the franchise is going in. They aren't a collective mind they still have individual responsibilities. Silverman has NOTHING to do with development anything he says is purely to try and sell a game to a specific audience. As for the doctors my feeling is that while they have overall responsibility for the Bioware division that they tend to make state of the nation type statements that aren't necessarily reflected in the individual games.

I hold Mike Laidlaw far more accountable than the others for the direction of the DA franchise itself and if he's made such a manifestly stupid statement as that then it reflects poorly on him and has more impact on my opinion of the franchise. 

[Demx]

If classes are removed the whole mage/templar battle would be pointless for me. Not to mention all the work Bioware put into trying to make each class look unique. So I don't really see that going into DA3. Now if they used that for noncombat skills that could be neat.

They could turn around and borrow the control layout and tweak it a bit for the consoles, but I would hate that for the PC.

Using a new engine and trying to create a similar open world experience, under their current time constraints would be terrible. A best bet would be making the hubs more worthwhile to explore, and less dead.

I wouldn't mind killing random NPCs at any time and having others react to the situation. Or how Skyrim implemented their side quests and their day/night cycle. Hell, even adding a guild could be fun, as long as it isn't forced on us.

In short, I think it isn't bad that Bioware is taking notes from Skyrim. They just need to be careful about what ideas they will borrow from them and how they will be implemented.

[DreamwareStudio]

Morroian wrote...

Of course it matters if you want to determine the creative direction the franchise is going in. They aren't a collective mind they still have individual responsibilities. Silverman has NOTHING to do with development anything he says is purely to try and sell a game to a specific audience. As for the doctors my feeling is that while they have overall responsibility for the Bioware division that they tend to make state of the nation type statements that aren't necessarily reflected in the individual games.

I hold Mike Laidlaw far more accountable than the others for the direction of the DA franchise itself and if he's made such a manifestly stupid statement as that then it reflects poorly on him and has more impact on my opinion of the franchise. 

I have a pretty good suspicion which direction the franchise is going without knowing for sure who said that.  Laidlaw's responses to criticism have pretty much said all I need to hear.  Yes, he's come around about some things, but DA 3 will still reflect more of DA 2 than DA 3, and frankly, I'm not interested in DA 3 if that suspicion turns into fact.

Time will tell.

[Time Victim]

I don't have a problem with a voiced protagonist. I just miss having four-five different responses. It would require having the voice actors record more lines which could add months on to development time. DAII felt like they gave Hawke the minimum amount of dialogue just to get the game out quicker. The choices in dialogue were often too extreme. We had overly heroic, smartass, and rude tool. I also miss persuasion and intimidation.

[In Exile]

HiroVoid wrote...
I think the main point is basically saying that people won't buy games with silent protagonists is dumb, and that it's a feature of the past. 

But no one says that. The most that you get is the portion Ihave in bold. Saying that it's an archaic feature doesn't mean people wouldn't buy it, or like it, it just says that you think there are newer and better features out there.

If someone says that they think books are an archaic medium, that doesn't suddenly mean they're arguing either that people won't buy books or that books are dumb.

It's about as lame as the excuse as the people who said Bioware had to do something drastically differentt because a game like Origins wouldn't sell.....which Origins already proved wrong.

I don't understand this point.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Understood. Thank you In Exile. I never thought it that way.
When
I see things like "said angrily," I imagine the character facial and
body  expression with angry tones, How the character look when he "said
angrily" is ambigous enough for me. However, I can't imagine "gruff" and
"hoarse" because they are intangible. LOL 

It's not that it works differently for me. It's just that "angrily" is the level of meaning that has value. It's angry as opposed sad. It doesn't matter to me that it's angry like this instead of angry like that, because it's always angry.

So two characters, both with the same line and delivered the same way, feel the same to me.

The best example I can give in a game is TOR. There for certain quests, all of the classes have the same dialogue option. They each say it in their own VA, but it's the exact same line said in the same context with the same effect. And for me that's gamebreaking.

[In Exile]

Aaleel wrote..
By the time Origins proved to be the success it was, they would have already been some months into DA2 development.  They had already decided most of these changes before any fan feedback or sales numbers, but by then it was probably too late to do a 180 of the fundemental things they had decided to to do with DA2.  Knowles talked about his problem with the new direction months before Origins even hit the shelves.

Here's the thing. If DA2 was a good game, but not DA:O and it flopped, that would be a clear sign about what DA:O succeed as.

The problem is that DA2 is a bad game. It has stupid and incomprehensible features.

I'm willing to bet that the business thinking going in was that the game was enough like ME2 that it would succeed all on its own... but the problem is that it wouldn't.

ME2 got killed for not being like ME on the forums... but ME2 is also a well-made game (even if you say that it isn an RPG and it changed far too much from ME1) that it was a critical and commercial success.

But DA2 wasn't just a major change from DA:O. It wasn't good. On its own merits.

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Isn't that what we are talking about? Imagination.

DA 2 has no imagination. Only pictures and sounds but no feeling. No depth. Without imagination, role-play is meaningless. It's only story and yet it is never about you..

But it's not imagination. Because the computer doesn't let me imagine anything. At best, it asks me to fill the gap betwen A and B because those two points are predefined, but then it adds insult to injury by telling me how I should fill the gap between A and B. It's like a book in that way. And a book isn't imaginative in a creative sense. It's imaginative in a passive sense.

When I read a book, I imagine "pictures" and I imagine "sounds". But I don't get to get inside a characters head, and make decisions, and see and interplay of interactions. All of that requires an independent world that we have to interact with. And mental fantasy isn't an interactive world when it's so radically restrict as it is in a videogame.

RPGs can't be about imagination because they're far too impovrished a medium for it. It's too restrictive to do justice to what it means to really imagine something.

To use an analogy, to me imagination (and RP) is like writing. You're actively crafting a story. Silent VO is like reading. You're just coming up with your own imagine for something someone else gives you.

The important part of RP to me is creating a world where you're actively writing. To me, that has nothing to do with the presentation of the words used by the characters. That's all aesthetic. Now, I do have reasons why I think VO is actually better for RP than non-VO, but these are minor points. My main issue is with the idea that Silent VO somehow allows for RP, or that RP should be like reading.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Understood. Thank you In Exile. I never thought it that way.
When
I see things like "said angrily," I imagine the character facial and
body  expression with angry tones, How the character look when he "said
angrily" is ambigous enough for me. However, I can't imagine "gruff" and
"hoarse" because they are intangible. LOL 

It's not that it works differently for me. It's just that "angrily" is the level of meaning that has value. It's angry as opposed sad. It doesn't matter to me that it's angry like this instead of angry like that, because it's always angry.

So two characters, both with the same line and delivered the same way, feel the same to me.

Two characters can deliver the same line. However, two characters cannot deliver the same line in the same way. Because only clones and robot can do that. 

The way a person express his line is largely determined by his personality or how they perceived their character's personality ( which is my main issue with Hawke ). For example violent person tends to look threatening when he is angry. He may be clinching his first or his eyes may be looking for some objects to cause harm or he may be looking straight into your eyes with his murderous stare. I can tell you Ohgren and Fenris belong to this category. While some people will mostly likely to spit, curse and never even look at your eyes.  Isabella is most likely belong to this category.

There are many way/behaviour people can express his anger with one simple line of dialogue. But no two person can deliver the same line in the same way. In my previous post I make examples Sylvester Stallone and Jim Carrey ( Ace Ventura ). Ask them to express the same angry line and I can tell you ( Jim Carrey ) Ace Ventura will most probably "over reacting"  by throwing bottles or kicking  thrash ( like Fenris ). Because that is how he preceived his character personality. ( I hate social study  ) 

The main issue is not the meaning or value of angry itself but the character personality when expressing such meaning  or value.. 
 

In Exile wrote...

The best example I can give in a game is TOR. There for certain quests, all of the classes have the same dialogue option. They each say it in their own VA, but it's the exact same line said in the same context with the same effect. And for me that's gamebreaking.

I don't play TOR.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Isn't that what we are talking about? Imagination.

DA 2 has no imagination. Only pictures and sounds but no feeling. No depth. Without imagination, role-play is meaningless. It's only story and yet it is never about you..

But it's not imagination. Because the computer doesn't let me imagine anything. At best, it asks me to fill the gap betwen A and B because those two points are predefined, but then it adds insult to injury by telling me how I should fill the gap between A and B. It's like a book in that way. And a book isn't imaginative in a creative sense. It's imaginative in a passive sense.

When I read a book, I imagine "pictures" and I imagine "sounds". But I don't get to get inside a characters head, and make decisions, and see and interplay of interactions. All of that requires an independent world that we have to interact with. And mental fantasy isn't an interactive world when it's so radically restrict as it is in a videogame.

 This is why I don't like to play set characters and playing without pen and paper or other tools. It's spoiled your RP to the point you can't be imaginative and creative.

In Exile wrote... 
RPGs can't be about imagination because they're far too impovrished a medium for it. It's too restrictive to do justice to what it means to really imagine something.

To use an analogy, to me imagination (and RP) is like writing. You're actively crafting a story. Silent VO is like reading. You're just coming up with your own imagine for something someone else gives you.

The important part of RP to me is creating a world where you're actively writing.

Which is why game like TES, Neverwinter Nights, Neverwinter Nights 2 and DAO packed with toolset/creation kit to allow you do your own writing without restriction. Hence, with these tools your imagination and creativiy can be written or materialized. I do that a lot ever since I played Neverwinter Nights.


 

In Exile wrote... 

To me, that has nothing to do with the presentation of the words used by the characters.

The words are presented in a manner that completely defined character personality based on writer,  leaving no room for RP. As I said, If I am given the voice to RP then why can't I be given facial and body expression to emote as well? You can't give one half of responsive dialogue and yet scripted another half to AI. It doesn't work that way.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 06 janvier 2012 - 11:00 .

[Morroian]

Time Victim wrote...

I don't have a problem with a voiced protagonist. I just miss having four-five different responses. It would require having the voice actors record more lines which could add months on to development time. DAII felt like they gave Hawke the minimum amount of dialogue just to get the game out quicker. The choices in dialogue were often too extreme. We had overly heroic, smartass, and rude tool. I also miss persuasion and intimidation.

There was persuasion and intimidation of s sort, it just worked a different way based on your default character type. IMHO BW should look to what was done in Deus Ex HR as far as these options go.

As for number of responses once you add in investigate options DA2 had 4 -5 options regularly, probably not markedly less than DAO, it stands out less in DAO because the investigate type options aren't marked as such.

[Morroian]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

DA 2 has no imagination. Only pictures and sounds but no feeling. No depth. Without imagination, role-play is meaningless. It's only story and yet it is never about you..

You can't use your imagination because you have a preference for silent characers and can't move beyond the voice. I OTOH was perfectly able to use my imagination to create 5 very different Hawke's for DA2. 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Morroian wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

DA 2 has no imagination. Only pictures and sounds but no feeling. No depth. Without imagination, role-play is meaningless. It's only story and yet it is never about you..

You can't use your imagination because you have a preference for silent characers and can't move beyond the voice. I OTOH was perfectly able to use my imagination to create 5 very different Hawke's for DA2. 

No. I can't used my imagination because I am not allowed to. Everthing is already presented. PLUS we are not meant to take part in the story, remember? The story is presented in a way that treated you as an omniscient observer.

Remove third person narrator, add control over Hawke's dialogue acting + choice that's matter. That's all is needed for me to enter the world and take part in role-play. ( I would ask for toolset, but then again I know it's impossible.) Otherwise, I stay as an omniscient observer from my monitor. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 06 janvier 2012 - 10:50 .

[maxernst]

In Exile wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...
I think the main point is basically saying that people won't buy games with silent protagonists is dumb, and that it's a feature of the past. 

But no one says that. The most that you get is the portion Ihave in bold. Saying that it's an archaic feature doesn't mean people wouldn't buy it, or like it, it just says that you think there are newer and better features out there.

If someone says that they think books are an archaic medium, that doesn't suddenly mean they're arguing either that people won't buy books or that books are dumb.

Archaic implies that something is no longer in use.  Anyone calling books an archaic medium would be manifestly wrong.  Scrolls are an archaic medium.  Bronze swords are an archaic weapon. Silent film would be archaic.  Maybe text-based adventure games.  In language, archaic words are hard for a modern audience to understand and shouldn't be used unless you're trying to evoke the past.  It's a much stronger word than old-fashioned or traditional, which merely imply being out-of step with current trends, which is not always a bad thing.  If any big-budget game released in 2011 actually had a major feature that was genuinely archaic, it would have flopped. And I'm certain I can find examples of people arguing on the forums that Bioware had to have a voiced protagonist for DA2 and that nobody would buy a game with a silent protagonist in 2011.  I don't have the energy to search for the quotes now, but if you insist on contesting the point, I will.

And there's nothing new about voiced protagonists, they've been around for at least 15 years.  The only new thing in DA2 was the tone icons that astonished me by making a bad idea--paraphrasing--even worse.  Now, I get surprised not only by what Hawke says but also by the tone he says it in which frequently fails to match what the icon led me to believe.  I can tolerate a voiced protagonist with the DE:HR system, but after playing three games with paraphrasing, I'm fed up and won't buy another one.

Modifié par maxernst, 06 janvier 2012 - 03:48 .

[Riknas]

Okay, I'm going to skip over all the "I can role play with a Voiced Character, if you can't it's your own fault" and the "No you can't, no one can, you don't know what role playing means," because it's all unbelievably absurd to tell people how to role play and what is the "real" version of role playing is.

That said, referring back to the original post, I want to say that if you think Skyrim's radical success is credited by the lack of a voice actor, we have a serious problem.