457 réponses à ce sujet

[Meris]

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. 

It is foolish to deny that there's still liberty of interpretation with the Voice, but short of outright ignoring the voice (in short, fan fiction) its not even a tenth of what the Silence proportionated.

Riknas wrote...

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.

Again, the Silent Protagonist is, for some reasons, being seen with contempt. Like its a thing of the past.

And if it were, then it would be one of Skyrim's major faults, which it isn't. I've seen, maybe, 2 threads on gamespot about people asking if others would like a voiced protagonist and its pretty much 50/50.

Modifié par Meris, 06 janvier 2012 - 04:41 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Possibilities why Skyrim success
1. Exploration -> Dead Island features open world roaming with story driven but is not receiving well
2. Story -> Bethesda is not known for story
3. UI -> Terrible for PC
4. Stability -> Graphic glitches, freeze, quest bugs etc.
5. Combat -> No idea since I play anything and only stick to certain "classes" or weapon.
6. Moddable -> Possible as SyrimNexus reported unusual heavy traffic ever since Skyrim launch.
7. Non Linear -> Possible as most linear story driven are features of most disappointing games of 2011 like Dead Island, Lord of The Ring War in the North, 
8. Accessibility -> Possible for First Person Action and Simulation fans
9. Interactive movie -> Jurassic Park The Game isn't receiving very well despite based on block buster movie.
10. Silent Protagonist -> No other AAA titles features silent protagonist for 2011.
11. Graphic -> Most games features superb graphic. So I have no idea if this count..

Anyone want to add more reason why Skyrim success?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 06 janvier 2012 - 04:52 .

[HiroVoid]

The problem I feel is that it feels like the devs want Dragon Age to feel more cinematic which is the reason for the voiced protagonist.

To me, Dragon Age: Origins felt like a good book. Dragon Age 2 felt like a bad SyFy movie.

[Meris]

HiroVoid wrote...

The problem I feel is that it feels like the devs want Dragon Age to feel more cinematic which is the reason for the voiced protagonist.

To me, Dragon Age: Origins felt like a good book. Dragon Age 2 felt like a bad SyFy movie.

Its not just that, since Dragon Age: Origins was also plenty cinematic. They also want the protagonist to be part of the graphical experience, which sadly leads to a pre-defined character with a voice (or a near-pre defined character with no motivation and a voice, as in DAII).

[Jerrybnsn]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Possibilities why Skyrim success
1. Exploration -> Dead Island features open world roaming with story driven but is not receiving well
2. Story -> Bethesda is not known for story
3. UI -> Terrible for PC
4. Stability -> Graphic glitches, freeze, quest bugs etc.
5. Combat -> No idea since I play anything and only stick to certain "classes" or weapon.
6. Moddable -> Possible as SyrimNexus reported unusual heavy traffic ever since Skyrim launch.
7. Non Linear -> Possible as most linear story driven are features of most disappointing games of 2011 like Dead Island, Lord of The Ring War in the North, 
8. Accessibility -> Possible for First Person Action and Simulation fans
9. Interactive movie -> Jurassic Park The Game isn't receiving very well despite based on block buster movie.
10. Silent Protagonist -> No other AAA titles features silent protagonist for 2011.
11. Graphic -> Most games features superb graphic. So I have no idea if this count..

Anyone want to add more reason why Skyrim success?

1.Exploration-Dead Island was not received well for other reasons, like clunkiness of movement, limited first person frame, respawing enemy when you left an area and returned, bad graphics, and a horrible save system that could wipe out an hour's worth of play on you.  Combare with the combat action of Dead Rising,  Dead Island lacked a lot what you would expect in a zombie game.

[LobselVith8]

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? 

I don't think you can compare The Warden looking stoic with having a protagonist say entire lines of dialogue that don't even match the dialogue option you've chosen.

[Jerrybnsn]

Hawk can have a 1,000 mile stare too if you hold off on selecting a phrase. And he'll stare at another npc while they are talking. The player envisions the animated response to a silent protagonist. The voiced protagonst will create the vision for the player.

[Jerrybnsn]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

10. Silent Protagonist -> No other AAA titles features silent protagonist for 2011.

Anyone want to add more reason why Skyrim success?

Did Call of Duty 3 implement a voiced protagonist this time?

[LinksOcarina]

Both are fine. Bioware is choosing to go one way over the other and I can respect that. I think the problem is we were spoiled enough to have both grace the Dragon Age series.

[In Exile]

[quote]maxernst wrote..
Archaic implies that something is no longer in use. [/quote]

No, it doesn't.

It could simply mean "marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; antiquated: an archaic manner; an archaic notion." and antiquated could simply mean " continued from, resembling, or adhering to the past; old-fashioned: antiquated attitudes." 

That you assume there is some kind of judgement about value involved is your problem, but has nothing to do with the literal definition of the word.

[quote]Anyone calling books an archaic medium would be manifestly wrong.  [/quote]

Or they would actually understand what words mean.

[quotIf 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.[/quote]

And here I thought you were talking about Bioware, not random people on the internet. I can find you quotes that say that DA:O isn't an RPG because it has origins, but that doesn't make the statement inane and it certainly doesn't make it representative of any majoritarian POV.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

Good for you. None of this has to do with what you said, which was that Skyrim somehow "proves" that a text based PC isn't archaic.

Modifié par In Exile, 06 janvier 2012 - 06:17 .

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
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. 

You're starting from the wrong PoV, which is that in this case two characters are forced by the circumstances to deliver the line the same way.
 

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.

And you know what these nonverbal differnces cause? Differences in reactions. Differences that don't exist in an RPG, because everyone always reacts the same way to you. 1/2 of every interaction is the reaction of the person your speaking to, which is fixed and dependent on what and how you act. 

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  )

And, like I said, people react differently to this.

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

My point is that the personality of the character, insofar as the video game is concerned, is already fixed when you get to "angry".

I don't play TOR.

You don't have to. I just referenced my source.

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
 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.

There's no video game character that isn't set.

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.

Well, sure, you can be imaginative when you make your own content, but that's very different than RPing your way through it.

[Jerrybnsn]

Since this post is primarily about whether or not to adopt Skyrim's silent protagonist, I'd like to add that the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, are hands-on involved in making an rpg South Park game. And they have decided to have a silent protagonist because they want you to feel that the character you create is your own. A voiced actor is not your own. (I'm paraphrasing them of course) And this comes from two guys who everything they touch turns gold.

[Yrkoon]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Possibilities why Skyrim success
1. Exploration -> Dead Island features open world roaming with story driven but is not receiving well
2. Story -> Bethesda is not known for story
3. UI -> Terrible for PC
4. Stability -> Graphic glitches, freeze, quest bugs etc.
5. Combat -> No idea since I play anything and only stick to certain "classes" or weapon.
6. Moddable -> Possible as SyrimNexus reported unusual heavy traffic ever since Skyrim launch.
7. Non Linear -> Possible as most linear story driven are features of most disappointing games of 2011 like Dead Island, Lord of The Ring War in the North, 
8. Accessibility -> Possible for First Person Action and Simulation fans
9. Interactive movie -> Jurassic Park The Game isn't receiving very well despite based on block buster movie.
10. Silent Protagonist -> No other AAA titles features silent protagonist for 2011.
11. Graphic -> Most games features superb graphic. So I have no idea if this count..

Anyone want to add more reason why Skyrim success?

I do, but I'd also remove a bunch of yours because  they're  silly  and  I'm fairly certain they have no bearing on the game's sales, regardless of whether they're good features or badly implemented ones.   #3 for instance.  I've yet  to hear anyone say:  "Hey, I heard that game X has  a good User Interface, so I went ahead and bought it!"  lol

The fact of the matter is that Skyrim's success   was 17 years in the making.   Over the past 2 Decades, the Elder Scrolls series  has been gathering a fan base.  After 5 rather consistant titles, that base got pretty darn big.  There's also the matter of Value.  The game has hundreds upon hundreds of hours of hand crafted content.

And,  Consistancy.  You know what you're gonna get when you buy an elder scrolls game.    Always.  Bethesda hasn't changed the  core formula since Arena.  And again, when you have almost 2 decades of consistancy, that tends to reduce the pool of fans jumping ship on the franchise. (DA2's problem) 

Finally, Marketting.  Bethesda did a good job marketing Skyrim  for almost the entirety of 2011.  They knew exactly who their market was, and they did nothing to turn that market off.  Instead, they simply let the game  and its footage speak for itself.  Their Convention demonstrations were as openended as the game.  They'd  have a row of consoles  all loaded up with the game, then they'd let the media in.  Then they'd sit them down in front of a console and they'd say:  "Go.  You have 1 hour.  do whatever the hell you want."  Then these lucky bastard media guys would get to play the demo for an hour, and publish their experiences for the rest of us to read.  And the result?  We, the fans sitting at home were flooded with a  thousand  different articles describing  vastly differing experiences, ranging from  "let me tell you what happened when I  decided to craft stuff for an hour"  to  "hey, wanna know how my evil-kill-everything bastard Argonian fared after traveling west for one hour?"  and  "well, I decided to just follow the main quest, here's what happened in my hour".  etc.  etc. etc.   (read: enough to pique the interest of any type of  RPG fan.)  

Modifié par Yrkoon, 06 janvier 2012 - 07:46 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...

Well, sure, you can be imaginative when you make your own content, but that's very different than RPing your way through it. 

But RPing your way through it only allow yourself to be restrictred by video games limitation. It has always been known that video games will never be able to provide justification and flexibility due to limitation by designed. RP itself has no limitation. No one tell a child how to play his toys. He uses his own imagination and creativity ( to the point he breaks the toys ). A parent can provide a toy but will never knows what inside a child's mind. If you show everything how to play toys based on your own vision, you will only make the child cries.  

No one can tell you what to wear for cosplay while attending BioWare's Pax 2011. It's entirely up to you. Whatever cosplay you wear is based on your imagination and creativity. The rule is your own budget. That's the only limitation you have to work with. 

Pen & Paper or D&D or any RP system can only provide ruleset and world to guide you. You can work your way within such parameter. If you are happy with such parameters, then that's fine. But it doesn't necessary meant you have to restrict yourself by it's design.  I on midset that you don't have to follow everything be it D&D or Pen and Paper or even Video Game RPG. Which is the main reason  I never buy any  RPG that lack of RPG elements essential to me such as character creation, character progression, character accomplishment, the ability to shape the story and toolset. Game that features set character and totally linear story without toolset to suppliment doesn't interest me. For that matter, I don't buy Planescape Tournment, Kotor, Jade Empire, MDK, Shattered Steel, etc..I made a mistake buying ME 2, thinking it has toolset. ( Apparently it doesn't have one.  ) I don't support such video game.

But back to DA 2-DAO character responsive limitation, I don't know how you work through your limitation in both games but for me DAO allow more room to RP. The NPC may misunderstand my warden but I haven't notice such misunderstanding in any of my playthroughs. I never see NPC misunderstand  Hawke either. It's me who always misunderstand Hawke. Now that's cause more problem  to me because controlling a character that doesn't understand is like driving a broken car.  I rather have the NPC misunderstand my character than I misunderstand my own character. I can't RP if I can't understand my own character.    

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

10. Silent Protagonist -> No other AAA titles features silent protagonist for 2011.

Anyone want to add more reason why Skyrim success?

Did Call of Duty 3 implement a voiced protagonist this time?

Now that's a + for silent protagonist. Thank you.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Yrkoon wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Possibilities why Skyrim success
1. Exploration -> Dead Island features open world roaming with story driven but is not receiving well
2. Story -> Bethesda is not known for story
3. UI -> Terrible for PC
4. Stability -> Graphic glitches, freeze, quest bugs etc.
5. Combat -> No idea since I play anything and only stick to certain "classes" or weapon.
6. Moddable -> Possible as SyrimNexus reported unusual heavy traffic ever since Skyrim launch.
7. Non Linear -> Possible as most linear story driven are features of most disappointing games of 2011 like Dead Island, Lord of The Ring War in the North, 
8. Accessibility -> Possible for First Person Action and Simulation fans
9. Interactive movie -> Jurassic Park The Game isn't receiving very well despite based on block buster movie.
10. Silent Protagonist -> No other AAA titles features silent protagonist for 2011.
11. Graphic -> Most games features superb graphic. So I have no idea if this count..

Anyone want to add more reason why Skyrim success?

I do, but I'd also remove a couple of yours because  they're either silly,  or I'm fairly certain they have no bearing on the game's sales, regardless of whether they're good features or badly implemented ones.   #3 for instance.  I've yet  to hear anyone say:  "Hey, I heard that game X has  a good User Interface, so I went ahead and bought it!"  lol

The fact of the matter is that Skyrim's success   was 17 years in the making.   Over the past 2 Decades, the Elder Scrolls series  has been gathering a fan base.  After 5 rather consistant titles, that base got pretty darn big.  There's also the matter of Value.  The game has hundreds upon hundreds of hours of hand crafted content.

And,  Consistancy.  You know what you're gonna get when you buy an elder scrolls game.    Always.  Bethesda hasn't changed the  core formula since Arena.  And again, when you have almost 2 decades of consistancy, that tends to reduce the pool of fans jumping ship on the franchise. (DA2's problem) 

Finally, Marketting.  Bethesda did a good job marketing Skyrim  for almost the entirety of 2011.  They knew exactly who their market was, and they did nothing to turn that market off.  Instead, they simply let the game  and its footage speak for itself.  Their Convention demonstrations were as openended as the game.  They'd  have a row of consoles  all loaded up with the game, then they'd let the media in.  Then they'd sit them down in front of a console and they'd say:  "Go.  You have 1 hour.  do whatever the hell you want."  Then these lucky bastard media guys would get to play the demo for an hour, and publish their experiences for the rest of us to read.  And the result?  We, the fans sitting at home were flooded with a  thousand  different articles describing  vastly differing experiences.  (read: enough to pique the insteret of any type of  RPG fan.)  

Thank you Yrkoon. 

Updated list of possible reasons why Skyrim success.

1. Exploration -> Possible 
2. Story -> Bethesda is not known for story
3. Stability -> Graphic glitches, freeze, quest bugs etc.
4. Combat -> No idea since I play anything and only stick to certain "classes" or weapon.
5. Moddable -> Possible as SyrimNexus reported unusual heavy traffic ever since Skyrim launch.
6. Non Linear -> Possible as most linear story driven are features of most disappointing games of 2011 like Dead Island, Lord of The Ring War in the North, 
7. Accessibility -> Possible for First Person Action and Simulation fans
8. Interactive movie -> Jurassic Park The Game isn't receiving very well despite based on block buster movie.
9. Silent Protagonist ->Possible.Only Skyrim and Call of Duty 3 feature silent protagonist in 2011 and both are very successful
10. Graphic -> Most games features superb graphic. So I have no idea if this count.. 


Added by Yrkoon:
11. Reputation -> Possible.TES series has 17 years in making
12. Consistancy ->Possible. Bethesda hasn't changed the core formula since Arena
13. Marketting -> Possible.Good Marketing strategy

If anyone would like to argue above points or would like to add any more possibilty reasons why Skyrim success please do not hesitate to comments.  
 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 06 janvier 2012 - 07:57 .

[maxernst]

In Exile wrote...

maxernst wrote..
Archaic implies that something is no longer in use.

No, it doesn't.

It could simply mean "marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; antiquated: an archaic manner; an archaic notion." and antiquated could simply mean " continued from, resembling, or adhering to the past; old-fashioned: antiquated attitudes." 

That you assume there is some kind of judgement about value involved is your problem, but has nothing to do with the literal definition of the word.

Another definition picked off the internet, mor
. belonging to or characteristic of a much earlier period; ancient2. out of date; antiquated an archaic prison system3. (Linguistics) (of idiom, vocabulary, etc.) characteristic of an earlier period of a language and not in ordinary use

Is it really your contention that someone describing a prison system as archaic would be praise?  And the literal definition is #! and books are not characteristic of an ancient period, they're still being produced today.  Iit's not a case of we still have some of those things lying around from centuries ago.  So if you are describing  books as archaic, then you're the one who doesn't understand the literal meaning of the word.  You can chase near-synonyms around (there are very few true synonyms) and you'll eventually change the word's meaning completely, by jumping from antiquated to antique which is almost always used in a positive sense.  The word archaic in common usage is used to dismiss something as no longer being of value--and that's perfectly consistent with its use in explaining why you're not using it.  There are other words that could be used for a similar idea that have much fewer negative connotations.  It's not my so-called "problem", that's how the word is used .  Google archaic, check out the senses it's used in, and you'll see for itself that it's not used in a perjorative sense, it's used to describe something that really is extremely old.  And since there are still games with silent protagonists, even made by companies with big budgets, it's not something characteristic of a much earlier period.

[PinkShoes]

I prefer sielnt but if we have to go voiced ffs can we at least pick from a couple voices? Its an AAA title, they should be able to afford more VA and if they honnetsly cant they should get rid of their marketing and use the moeny from that for more VA's

[Morroian]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Since this post is primarily about whether or not to adopt Skyrim's silent protagonist, I'd like to add that the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, are hands-on involved in making an rpg South Park game. And they have decided to have a silent protagonist because they want you to feel that the character you create is your own.

3rd person role playing is still role playing.

[Morroian]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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.

Maybe but so what, you can still be immersed in the story and the characters.

Meris wrote...

Riknas wrote...

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.

Again, the Silent Protagonist is, for some reasons, being seen with contempt. Like its a thing of the past.

And if it were, then it would be one of Skyrim's major faults, which it isn't. I've seen, maybe, 2 threads on gamespot about people asking if others would like a voiced protagonist and its pretty much 50/50.

Stating that Skyrim success is not due to the silent protagonist is hardly contemptuous. 

Modifié par Morroian, 06 janvier 2012 - 10:28 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Morroian wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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.

Maybe but so what, I can still be immersed in the story and the characters

There. I fixed that for you.

There is no evidence that shows people dislike silent protagonist. Since Skyrim and Call of Duty 3 are the only two games released in 2011 that featured silent protagonist and both are very successful, it's strongly suggest that  whether

a.) majority of people do not mind their character is voiced or not. 
 
or

b. ) majority of people favored silent protagonist in the sense that their character are their player avatar 

Whereas, there is no evidence that show game could success based solely on interactive movie ( Jurassic Park: The Movie ) and linear story ( Lord of the Ring War in The North, Dead Island and Dragon Age 2. ). Both of this features are main focus of BioWare's game.

Cinematic RPG is no longer become main attraction, like it used to be decades ago with released of FF7. That day is over. Instead voice protagonist and cinematic driven  linear story is beginning to show fatigue while Silent protagonist and First person fest still stands strong. It shows people want to be active actor and not passive audience. In order word, you play the role. Not you watch your toon to roleplay you.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 07 janvier 2012 - 12:16 .

[maxernst]

Morroian wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

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.

Maybe but so what, you can still be immersed in the story and the characters.

Maybe you can, but I can't.

[Plaintiff]

PinkShoes wrote...

I prefer sielnt but if we have to go voiced ffs can we at least pick from a couple voices? Its an AAA title, they should be able to afford more VA and if they honnetsly cant they should get rid of their marketing and use the moeny from that for more VA's

What on earth would be the point of funnelling millions of dollars into a game, if nobody was ever going to learn that it existed?

[Plaguemaster]

For me, sinent protagonist=>less $$$ on VA=>more for game production=>better RPG.
I can live with silent protagonist.