833 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Corto81 wrote...
Although I think it's a shame because the silent protagonist offers more creativity to a player, I think we understand Bioware isn't gonna stray from that course, and that's fine IMO, as long as the execution is good.

As a comparison...
ME1 was a proper RPG with a VO toon.
And ME1 was the reason why the series caught on so much.
(ME2 and ME3... Honestly if one of them was ME1, the franchise would not have been as popular, it just lost most of its RPG elements, turned into an action-adventure... And there are much better action-adventure / interactive movie / shooter game)

Similarly, Origins was a proper RPG, and THAT'S what got people hooked.
They cared for the world, they cared for the people.

I mentioned earlier, Origins human story, for example.
You gave me time to get to know my parents, my dog, my brother, my nephew, the librarian, the cook, some other nobles, some kids, etc.
I was sold and hooked even before Arl Howe turned.
I careed.

And then the Ostagar cut-scene happened, like I said, the single most nerd-goosebumping in any RPG I've ever seen. Not BG, not ES, not Witcher, not PS:T, nothing ever moved me as that cutscene.
The build up to it was slow but engaging, people felt real, afraid, etc.

If you guys make us care like that, I honestly don't think it matters if the protagonist is voiced or not.

As long as the VO and the cut-scenes don't get in the way of a quality RPG experience and a deep, "real" world with quality content, it won't matter.
As long as you guys go out and make a proper, deep, engaging RPG that made you famous in the first place, noone's gonna care if the combat is more action-themed (let's face, the click-and-point days are over, be it DA, Skyrim, Witcher, etc.) or if the main toon is voiced.

I would not go that far ME1 had a lot of restrictions, far more than Origins. I'm also not so sure that it's somehow a better RPG than ME2. ME had a lot of bloat and a lot of generic stuff, while ME2 maybe have been a little too trimmed down, it was still very much the same Shepard as in ME character wise, and there was a lot more variety. What ME had going for it was freshness, very much the same was as Origins was "fresh" at the time it was released.

VO and cinematics are always going to inpinge on your roleplaying unless you don't mind going with the flow. As such if you do a VO/cinemtatic game you should make the most of those elements.Because trying to dull them to allow more roleplaying is counterproductive.

[Sylvianus]

David Gaider wrote...
 I would hope that kind of frankness is something the average person would appreciate, as I could indeed simply nod my head and say "yes that's a good point, we'll consider it". Which would be a lie, if a nicer one. I find it more useful to say when things are still in flux, and point out issues that I foresee if not always the solutions (as I don't have all the answers).

Please, continue to do so. It's good to know what Bioware wants and does not want, what we can discuss, whether we like it or not.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 22 mars 2012 - 06:43 .

[TEWR]

nerdage wrote...

I do wonder if a system like that has ever ever been prototyped. Even with my most objective hat on (it's a feature I'd very much like to see) I don't see the major drawback with it.

I can accept that it wouldn't give me any follow up lines (if there's some back-and-forth with the NPC), or that the full-text line alone wouldn't give me all the meaning of the line...

Regarding back and forth between an NPC when one picks a line, I wouldn't mind it either. Rather then seeing it as my character speaking without my input in those instances, I'd see it as an extension of the line I picked. Dragon Age II had this already IIRC, where when Hawke talks to Isabela about finding the relic the general idea of Sarcastic Hawke's line was this:

Isabela: I'm so close I can taste it!
Hawke: Isn't that what you said last time?
Isabela: Oh, you mean with that box we dug up?
Hawke: Yes, that turned out to containt several badly written poems and an old boot.
Isabela: Well, it could've contained the relic.

In those instances, so long as tone is either preserved or neutral -- not sure how a neutral tone would work, but anyway -- it seems to be more of an extension of the line rather then a person's character speaking without input.

That said however, when the protagonist engages in banter without the player's input ever -- say with Aveline while walking around Hightown -- then things get tricky for me. While I may enjoy -- and sometimes even be content with -- what was said, at the same time I'm not a fan of having my protagonist doing stuff without my say-so.

So it's a complex thing for me. On one hand, I like some of the things that Hawke says. On the other hand, I wish I had been the ones to say them -- well, pick them if we want to get technical -- and not Hawke himself.

nerdage wrote...

But instead of looking at what it doesn't do, I think about what it would make better and what it would make worse. Assuming it were an option and not compulsory I can't imagine it making anyone's experience worse.

Neither can I. 

Then since it would probably be presented in a tooltip or elsewhere on the screen it's not detracting from what I know about the line already (i.e. the tone from the icon and the paraphrased 'gist' from the wheel), it just means I'm that much more informed about what I'm choosing. And as much as... 

David Gaider wrote...

What if the actual meaning of that line is conveyed via emotion or gesture?

may be valid, what if the meaning is conveyed in the words? For instance when my Hawke professed "love" for Isabela after an otherwise casual booty call; that wasn't implied in the paraphrase or any icon, and while you could put that down to a misleading paraphrase, let's be honest stuff like that's always going to slip the net from time to time. 

It just seems like a quality of life thing that would improve the experience for a not-inconsiderable number of players. I mean we have a "hide helmet" toggle...

Not much else for me to say other then that I agree with everything you've said.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 mars 2012 - 06:42 .

[Pasquale1234]

Leafs43 wrote...

The only difference between the wheel system and the dialog in DAO is the dialog option might contain an extra sentence. But its not as if you choose your own dialog. The dialog is pre-written and you have to choose between it. A voice actor could read your dialog choice and it would be the literal same response from the dialog wheel.

Other than that, there is literally no real quantifiable difference.

The whole ordeal is making a mountain out of a mole hole.

Except that in DAO, you could choose exactly how that dialogue was delivered and even alter the verbiage to make it better fit the character you were playing - so what you were actually choosing was how you wanted the NPC and game to respond.  The Warden's options did not change due to some predominant tone.  In DA2, you are primarily choosing tone rather than the actual content of what Hawke is going to say, because you don't really know what Hawke will say until s/he says it - and sometimes it is inconsistent with the Hawke you thought you were playing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

they'd have no more visibility into what tone was being used

This is the problem that needs fixing.  Any dominant tone system should be transparent.

[Leafs43]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

The only difference between the wheel system and the dialog in DAO is the dialog option might contain an extra sentence. But its not as if you choose your own dialog. The dialog is pre-written and you have to choose between it. A voice actor could read your dialog choice and it would be the literal same response from the dialog wheel.

Other than that, there is literally no real quantifiable difference.

The whole ordeal is making a mountain out of a mole hole.

Except that in DAO, you could choose exactly how that dialogue was delivered and even alter the verbiage to make it better fit the character you were playing - so what you were actually choosing was how you wanted the NPC and game to respond.  The Warden's options did not change due to some predominant tone.  In DA2, you are primarily choosing tone rather than the actual content of what Hawke is going to say, because you don't really know what Hawke will say until s/he says it - and sometimes it is inconsistent with the Hawke you thought you were playing.

Actually you really can't.  Just because they give you your dialog upfront because it lacks a voice actor doesn't mean you really have a choice.  You're still railroaded into the same dialog choices no matter how many times you play the same conversation.  

End result is the same.  They give you the exact same verbage, except one is written and one is said.

Modifié par Leafs43, 22 mars 2012 - 07:23 .

[bEVEsthda]

David Gaider wrote...

Cyr8 wrote...
From what I can gather from the comments from the users and the replies by David Gaider, it seems like people are asking for the changes they want while David is basically defending the choices that were made in Dragon Age II.

Not defending so much as addressing some of the ideas for changes-- if I can. As I've mentioned a few times, some of these things are in the process of change and thus not everything is off the table. The amount of and use of auto-dialogue (the tones in particular) is one such. I may not be at the point where I can discuss specifics, but when something is suggested which I can speak to I'll do so.

Some things are indeed off the table, however-- such as the use of a silent protaganist. That's simply not going to happen, so there's no reason for me to encourage conversation down that path if it's a dead end. I would hope that kind of frankness is something the average person would appreciate, as I could indeed simply nod my head and say "yes that's a good point, we'll consider it". Which would be a lie, if a nicer one. I find it more useful to say when things are still in flux, and point out issues that I foresee if not always the solutions (as I don't have all the answers).

Beyond that, the thing to keep in mind is that the people who suggest changes are the ones who had big problems with the system. The people who did not have problems are not here, and probably would not be looking for threads like this to post in-- at least until the system changed and now they have a problem with whatever's been changed. That's universally true, and not specific to DA, and thus it really shouldn't be surprising that everyone you see on a thread regarding a complaint about the dialogue system is... complaining about the dialogue system. It's a self-selecting group of people involving themselves in the discussion. Which is okay, so long as one's perception on it is not skewed.

I do see issues for myself, however (hence why I'm here-- discussing such an issue with a group consisting of people who are entirely content with the status quo would not be useful, either). I think there are always issues, to an extent (I've yet to see a "perfect" system), and will always try new things-- and, yes, defend them when I think they're the right way to go. I'm the one who has to do the work to implement them, after all.

Well...
Silent protagonist, is as I see it, one solution to a thing that is broken in DA2. An easy, simple and well working solution to a big problem. Game breaking problem.

Since we can't have Silent Protagonist, there remains the question if it can be un-broken by any other means.

My problem, is that the Protagonist is not mine anymore. It's the author's, the voice actor's, or the movie director's. Towards the end of DA2, I was both highly suspicious of, and directly hostile towards Hawke. And 'played' her from that platform. As in not even letting her get anywhere near some things,..

See what a screwup this makes for a RPG? (I'll never understand those who speak of immersion in DA2, other than that those players were mentally really watching a movie, and 'identifying' with a main cast, rather than playing a role).

So there's you mission, David (actually, it's not just your mission, but Bioware's): Make the protagonist mine.

First is that we always make a choice. We must correctly understand that choice, and the protagonist must never do anything we haven't chosen to do (including saying things).

There are problems with moods and details. And if you have any plans to make the protagonist star in cinematic drama acting, those are likely to only be worse.

How will I accept the voice? Could be both an unsignificant or major issue, I guess. There is the possibility to give us a choice of voice.


It's far from the only thing I don't like about DA2. But it's one of those things which are decidely really broken, from my POV.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

So, for the person who's already over-thinking this

There's no such thing as "over-thinking".

[Leafs43]

bEVEsthda wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Cyr8 wrote...
From what I can gather from the comments from the users and the replies by David Gaider, it seems like people are asking for the changes they want while David is basically defending the choices that were made in Dragon Age II.

Not defending so much as addressing some of the ideas for changes-- if I can. As I've mentioned a few times, some of these things are in the process of change and thus not everything is off the table. The amount of and use of auto-dialogue (the tones in particular) is one such. I may not be at the point where I can discuss specifics, but when something is suggested which I can speak to I'll do so.

Some things are indeed off the table, however-- such as the use of a silent protaganist. That's simply not going to happen, so there's no reason for me to encourage conversation down that path if it's a dead end. I would hope that kind of frankness is something the average person would appreciate, as I could indeed simply nod my head and say "yes that's a good point, we'll consider it". Which would be a lie, if a nicer one. I find it more useful to say when things are still in flux, and point out issues that I foresee if not always the solutions (as I don't have all the answers).

Beyond that, the thing to keep in mind is that the people who suggest changes are the ones who had big problems with the system. The people who did not have problems are not here, and probably would not be looking for threads like this to post in-- at least until the system changed and now they have a problem with whatever's been changed. That's universally true, and not specific to DA, and thus it really shouldn't be surprising that everyone you see on a thread regarding a complaint about the dialogue system is... complaining about the dialogue system. It's a self-selecting group of people involving themselves in the discussion. Which is okay, so long as one's perception on it is not skewed.

I do see issues for myself, however (hence why I'm here-- discussing such an issue with a group consisting of people who are entirely content with the status quo would not be useful, either). I think there are always issues, to an extent (I've yet to see a "perfect" system), and will always try new things-- and, yes, defend them when I think they're the right way to go. I'm the one who has to do the work to implement them, after all.

Well...
Silent protagonist, is as I see it, one solution to a thing that is broken in DA2. An easy, simple and well working solution to a big problem. Game breaking problem.

Since we can't have Silent Protagonist, there remains the question if it can be un-broken by any other means.

My problem, is that the Protagonist is not mine anymore. It's the author's, the voice actor's, or the movie director's. Towards the end of DA2, I was both highly suspicious of, and directly hostile towards Hawke. And 'played' her from that platform. As in not even letting her get anywhere near some things,..

See what a screwup this makes for a RPG? (I'll never understand those who speak of immersion in DA2, other than that those players were mentally really watching a movie, and 'identifying' with a main cast, rather than playing a role).

So there's you mission, David (actually, it's not just your mission, but Bioware's): Make the protagonist mine.

First is that we always make a choice. We must correctly understand that choice, and the protagonist must never do anything we haven't chosen to do (including saying things).

There are problems with moods and details. And if you have any plans to make the protagonist star in cinematic drama acting, those are likely to only be worse.

How will I accept the voice? Could be both an unsignificant or major issue, I guess. There is the possibility to give us a choice of voice.


It's far from the only thing I don't like about DA2. But it's one of those things which are decidely really broken, from my POV.

Silent protagonist or not, its still the author's character.  

The author still writes the responses that you choose.


If it was my character, I don't know how many times I would have told Sten to make gall darn sense.

[AkiKishi]

Leafs43 wrote...

Actually you really can't.  Just because they give you your dialog upfront because it lacks a voice actor doesn't mean you really have a choice.  You're still railroaded into the same dialog choices no matter how many times you play the same conversation.  

End result is the same.  They give you the exact same verbage, except one is written and one is said.

It's a roleplaying thing, you can imagine the dialogue in with a silent protagonist but you can't imagine it out when you have a VA.

The problem I have is that now we have a confirmed voiced protagoinst all that the things like adjusting tone etc. serve to do is make them more generic.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Leafs43 wrote...

Actually you really can't.  Just because they give you your dialog upfront because it lacks a voice actor doesn't mean you really have a choice.  You're still railroaded into the same dialog choices no matter how many times you play the same conversation.  

BUt how each line is delivered can differ fro playthrough to playthrough.  Also, because we're allowed to see the lines in adavnce, we get to choose what our character says.  DA2 doesn't let us choose the line, nor does it let us deliver teh same line with a different ton on a subsequent playthrough.

DAO lets you choose among options.  DA2 does not.

DAO allows you to adjust those options to suit each PC.  DA2 does not.

[Leafs43]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Actually you really can't.  Just because they give you your dialog upfront because it lacks a voice actor doesn't mean you really have a choice.  You're still railroaded into the same dialog choices no matter how many times you play the same conversation.  

End result is the same.  They give you the exact same verbage, except one is written and one is said.

It's a roleplaying thing, you can imagine the dialogue in with a silent protagonist but you can't imagine it out when you have a VA.

The problem I have is that now we have a confirmed voiced protagoinst all that the things like adjusting tone etc. serve to do is make them more generic.

I suppose I just cannot relate to that.  

I mean you're playing a story driven game that the writers planned out narrative and focus so what the protagonist says should be a literal interpretation of what is meant.  Either through a VA or text.

Modifié par Leafs43, 22 mars 2012 - 07:37 .

[TheStrand221]

Although responses are still limited, the silent protagonist with full dialogue options allows you the ambiguity to "write" your character more. Without that ambiguity, it's being written by Mr. Gaider and his associates. More cinematic games of that ilk, such as The Witcher 2, can be really good games but if you don't like their protagonist, as many people dislike Geralt, you aren't going to have much interest in the them. The Witcher 2 was so effective because you had a defined character who you simply made choices for and could define in certain established, but wide-reaching and epic ways. It was a well made and sophisticated choose your own adventure story.

An "RPG" in the sense many people here mean it requires enough ambiguity to allow a player to define their own character. Choices are still going to have a practical limit, but there is a reasonable space for the player to define their own motivation and intentions, no matter how things turn out. Of course, a good amount of in-game reactivity to choices helps enhance the immersion, but it can't be done in such a way that contradicts the ways you've explained your character's behavior to yourself.

In my opinion, DA2 fell into a dangerous middle ground where it was trying to be both an "RPG" in the more traditional western sense and a cinematic choose your own adventure story with a semi-established character, and both types of gameplay suffered because of it.

Basically, Silvius is more right than he often receives credit for here.

[bEVEsthda]

Leafs43 wrote...

Silent protagonist or not, its still the author's character.  

The author still writes the responses that you choose.


If it was my character, I don't know how many times I would have told Sten to make gall darn sense.

You keep interjecting this argument into the debate. As if it helps. It doesn't.

I'm perfectly OK with having to make a choice. It doesn't matter if the choice I want is available or not. I will pick the one I'm most in tune with.
The Warden was mine. Whatever you say. And all the others too. But not Hawke.

So the situation from my POV is still exactly as I described it. And your argument is therefore useless. I'm sorry, but that is how it is.

[Leafs43]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Silent protagonist or not, its still the author's character.  

The author still writes the responses that you choose.


If it was my character, I don't know how many times I would have told Sten to make gall darn sense.

You keep interjecting this argument into the debate. As if it helps. It doesn't.

I'm perfectly OK with having to make a choice. It doesn't matter if the choice I want is available or not. I will pick the one I'm most in tune with.
The Warden was mine. Whatever you say. And all the others too. But not Hawke.

So the situation from my POV is still exactly as I described it. And your argument is therefore useless. I'm sorry, but that is how it is.

You just admitted you don't have full control over your character.

That is the complete basis of the entire argument.

[bEVEsthda]

Leafs43 wrote...

You just admitted you don't have full control over your character.

That is the complete basis of the entire argument.

What argument? Mine? No.

[Leafs43]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

You just admitted you don't have full control over your character.

That is the complete basis of the entire argument.

What argument? Mine? No.

Very simple logic.

You say the the protagonist is your character.  Then you say you don't actually have control of the character.

But the argument for a voice over is you don't have control of your character.

So you practically just admitted that texted based silent protagonist is the same as a voiced over protagonist.


The authors' have control over the character.  All voice over is is just reading you the lines you would have picked.

[Meris]

Leafs43 wrote...

The authors' have control over the character.  All voice over is is just reading you the lines you would have picked.

The player was never given full authorship in a CRPG, yes, but with a Silent Protagonist we fall into the brilliance of co-authorship. With the voice, the writers are the sole authors of the story and you grasp at straws to interpret it in some special way.

Edit: did I just post on the game owner forum? Wha?

Modifié par Meris, 22 mars 2012 - 07:55 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Meris wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

The authors' have control over the character.  All voice over is is just reading you the lines you would have picked.

The player was never given full authorship in a CRPG, yes, but with a Silent Protagonist we fall into the brilliance of co-authorship. With the voice, the writers are the sole authors of the story and you grasp at straws to interpret it in some special way.

Edit: did I just post on the game owner forum? Wha?

I always interpreted it like this... Some people feel like they own the character more if they can imagine the words being said. They don't really own it any more than they did before, but that illusion is what's important to them.

[bEVEsthda]

Leafs43 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

You just admitted you don't have full control over your character.

That is the complete basis of the entire argument.

What argument? Mine? No.

Very simple logic.

You say the the protagonist is your character.  Then you say you don't actually have control of the character.

But the argument for a voice over is you don't have control of your character.

So you practically just admitted that texted based silent protagonist is the same as a voiced over protagonist.


The authors' have control over the character.  All voice over is is just reading you the lines you would have picked.

First I'll just cut and paste this:

I'm perfectly OK with having to make a choice. It doesn't matter if the choice I want is available or not. I will pick the one I'm most in tune with.
The Warden was mine. Whatever you say. And all the others too. But not Hawke.

So the situation from my POV is still exactly as I described it. And your argument is therefore useless. I'm sorry, but that is how it is.



But maybe we'll come farther if we try two other angles:

1: As I've already tried to explain to you, your argument is utterly useless to me. I think that should have been totally clear from the start? So the question here is what you want? What is the point you want to make?
"So you practically just admitted that texted based silent protagonist is the same as a voiced over protagonist".
? Excuse me?  You want me to admit anything? What's on your mind? Explain.


2: "that texted based silent protagonist is the same as a voiced over protagonist"
No. Of course not!? How can you even suggest something like that? Do you think it's like that? Is that really your opinion?
But to make the opposite true is now Bioware's mission. They most hideously failed to do that in DA2.
I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that silent protagonist is a very simple and very well working solution to the problem. Because then the only response there is, is the literal text I just chose.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 22 mars 2012 - 08:15 .

[Ryenke]

Silent vs. Voiced characters - I personally find games with the silent character to be re-playable many, many times. I have multiple Wardens. I felt like I had multiple experiences playing DA:O.

I played DAII One and 1/2 times if I recall. But the second time fell flat for me because Hawke was still Hawke, new gender, new class, angry instead of good/snarky mix - but still Hawke. The story didn't diverge enough to keep me engaged in a new replay.

For me, the key to a great role play game is re-playability. For me the cinematic/voiced character story is something I may want to experience once, but quickly loses interest thereafter.

It also effects whether I will get DLC. I did get one of the two DAII DLC's but by the time it came out (months post game) I hadn't picked up DAII in months, and had mostly moved on from the interest I did have in Hawke's story. I didn't finish that DLC - not that there was anything wrong with it, but - meh - Hawke's story was done in my mind. Now DA:O DLC -

[Meris]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I always interpreted it like this... Some people feel like they own the character more if they can imagine the words being said. They don't really own it any more than they did before, but that illusion is what's important to them.

That's the gist of it - the brilliance of Ambiguity as a literary and storytelling technique. The best books I've read and the best RPGs I've played give me the chance to do different things without telling me why I'd do them - allowing me to interpret the why and how of said actions and lines of 'spoken' dialogue however I wish. The best roleplaying moments in DA2 were also those moments when Hawke wouldn't say why he chose to be agressive at a given moment - unfortunately they weren't very often.

The other arguments, if you're interested are like this: with voice acting came paraphrasing, which won't let you choose what you're saying before your character blurts it out. Further, before, the process of picking the line was analagous to saying it or doing what was described - serving to bring you closer to your in-game avatar. Lastly, many, including me, feel like voice acting puts a strain in resources and will only constrain our choices in game when, ideally, BioWare should expand them.

Weird, I can still post here on the wrong account. I'll stop now...

Modifié par Meris, 22 mars 2012 - 08:17 .

[bEVEsthda]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Meris wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

The authors' have control over the character.  All voice over is is just reading you the lines you would have picked.

The player was never given full authorship in a CRPG, yes, but with a Silent Protagonist we fall into the brilliance of co-authorship. With the voice, the writers are the sole authors of the story and you grasp at straws to interpret it in some special way.

Edit: did I just post on the game owner forum? Wha?

I always interpreted it like this... Some people feel like they own the character more if they can imagine the words being said. They don't really own it any more than they did before, but that illusion is what's important to them.

That's just a part of it. A bigger issue is perhaps that the voiced and acted response is not at all the one you thought you chose, or anything you would want.
But yes. There is also the part of imagining how it is said. For me, that is prob more solvable than for S. the M. since think I can have some lenience. As long as the expression is fairly neutral and not involve extreme drama acting.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 22 mars 2012 - 08:23 .

[Nighteye2]

David Gaider wrote...
Some things are indeed off the table, however-- such as the use of a silent protaganist. That's simply not going to happen, so there's no reason for me to encourage conversation down that path if it's a dead end. I would hope that kind of frankness is something the average person would appreciate, as I could indeed simply nod my head and say "yes that's a good point, we'll consider it". Which would be a lie, if a nicer one. I find it more useful to say when things are still in flux, and point out issues that I foresee if not always the solutions (as I don't have all the answers).

That frankness is much appreciated

I must say this, though: even if a silent protagonist is a passed station for DA3, it could still be considered for DA4, right? :innocent: