833 réponses à ce sujet

[Kavatica]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

I kind of love when Hawke participates in the occasional party banter. I didn't feel like anything she was saying was upsetting or out of character. That was actually something I wanted in DAO where the party banter would be amazing and hysterical and occasionally I would want to be able to participate in the conversation, but obviously, couldn't.

Modifié par Kavatica, 22 mars 2012 - 09:16 .

[bEVEsthda]

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.

You express something in interesting words.
You have to understand that all is illusion. You can't use that word to make a distinction the way you seem to.

There is no character. There are only 1s and 0s that make up text, sounds and computer graphics. But looking at it as just texture mapped vertexes, unicode, fonts, and recorded sounds is no fun.

So thanks to our imagination, yes, yours too, the character comes to life in our minds. And there, in our minds , is the only place the character 'exists'.

I would guess that you in some way mentally relates to it as if you watched a movie, with an actor playing a part, which is neither you nor your role, but someone you identify/empathize with. It's no less illusion. But the character is not yours, no that is correct.

The difference, with us who didn't like DA2's dialogue wheel, is that we do play that role. - If the game lets us.
 So we do own it, provided no mechanism breaks this. It's not an "illusion" in any distinctive manner, set apart from how you see it.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 22 mars 2012 - 10:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

What's important is that we get to choose.

DA2 does not let us choose lines, because we're not allowed to see the options.

DAO does let us choose lines.  We're choosing from a limited selection, but no one here asked for the ability to say anything we can imagine, just the ability to ccontrol what is said.  Limited control is still control,  DA2 does not greant us even limited control.

DA2 does not let us choose tone, because the tone for each line is fixed by the voice-over.

DAO does let us choose tone, as the delivery of each line is not made explicit by the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The problem with a character we do not control is that we cannot then know their mind. If we cannot know their mind, then we cannot see the world from their perspective.

But that's what roleplaying is: seeing the world through someone else's eyes. So that's what I want from these games. And if any aspect of my character is a mystery to me, then it is not possible to experience his perspective.

[Maria Caliban]

Leafs43 wrote...

Actually DA2, one of the positives is it really mixed up the choices in the wheel in a sense that you had to know the character you're talking to and what there reaction would be.


Choosing the "bad" response is actually the good choice in many cases.  If you went 100% "good" responses, you'd probably make more rivals than friends.

Not sure what you mean by 'good.' I picked the diplomatic response 90% of the time in DA II and ended up friends with everyone but Isabela.

[Kavatica]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Not sure what you mean by 'good.' I picked the diplomatic response 90% of the time in DA II and ended up friends with everyone but Isabela.

That's because Isabela doesn't believe in diplomacy.

[adlocutio]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The problem with a character we do not control is that we cannot then know their mind. If we cannot know their mind, then we cannot see the world from their perspective.

But that's what roleplaying is: seeing the world through someone else's eyes. So that's what I want from these games. And if any aspect of my character is a mystery to me, then it is not possible to experience his perspective.

Bioware's devs made the decision to subordinate player agency and roleplaying to storytelling and cinematics.  It's clear that when a player is doing nothing but watching his or her character behave without input, it cannot be called roleplaying at all. There's no playing going on.

 I might be wrong, but it seems to me Bioware is trying to reimagine all of its games to work within a single hybrid genre, which they assume appeals to a demographic sweet spot between action, adventure, and roleplaying - all told from a movie-like perspective.  There doesn't seem to be any point in trying to sway them away from that course. I don't think Bioware will ever again make a game in which roleplaying is the primary point, where the gameplay and game world and mechanics and story all exist to support roleplay.

The funny thing is, EITHER another "spiritual successor" to Baldur's Gate OR a complete move towards a Mass Effect style of game would be more successful than another DA2, imho.

[Pasquale1234]

Kavatica wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

I kind of love when Hawke participates in the occasional party banter. I didn't feel like anything she was saying was upsetting or out of character. That was actually something I wanted in DAO where the party banter would be amazing and hysterical and occasionally I would want to be able to participate in the conversation, but obviously, couldn't.

How come?  My Wardens joined in the party banter frequently. 

adlocutio wrote...
Bioware's devs made the decision to subordinate player agency and roleplaying to storytelling and cinematics. It's clear that when a player is doing nothing but watching his or her character behave without input, it cannot be called roleplaying at all. There's no playing going on.

This, ultimately, is going to be the problem for me.

I'll happily spend $60 for a game with massive replayability - one that challenges me and allows me to view its world through the eyes of numerous characters.  If what I'm mostly doing is watching a character behave without input, I would just as soon watch a movie or HBO series or something - easier, quicker, cheaper.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 22 mars 2012 - 10:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

adlocutio wrote...

I don't think Bioware will ever again make a game in which roleplaying is the primary point, where the gameplay and game world and mechanics and story all exist to support roleplay.

Perhaps.  But I will not let the lack of roleplaying pass unmentioned.  I will not stand idly by while games that do not allow roleplaying are marketed as roleplaying games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Kavatica wrote...

I kind of love when Hawke participates in the occasional party banter. I didn't feel like anything she was saying was upsetting or out of character. That was actually something I wanted in DAO where the party banter would be amazing and hysterical and occasionally I would want to be able to participate in the conversation, but obviously, couldn't.

How come?  My Wardens joined in the party banter frequently. 

Excellent point.

[bEVEsthda]

And one thing more , David.

You have to understand that Silvius the Mad is not alone.
It's just that he presents the case so well, that many of us others have let him do the speaking.
I, for instance, have never before involved myself in this (other than the occasional statement that I always support Silvius whatever he says). That doesn't mean I don't have strong opinions on this.

I have just chosen other areas, like the horribly awful art direction (which I gather you will also keep?) (most objectionable parts: combat animations).

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 22 mars 2012 - 10:44 .

[BioFan (Official)]

i personally liked my character actually speaking!

the diologe choices in origins led me astray. i couldn't tell the emotion behind what i was saying.

[Kavatica]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Kavatica wrote...

I kind of love when Hawke participates in the occasional party banter. I didn't feel like anything she was saying was upsetting or out of character. That was actually something I wanted in DAO where the party banter would be amazing and hysterical and occasionally I would want to be able to participate in the conversation, but obviously, couldn't.

How come?  My Wardens joined in the party banter frequently. 

Excellent point.

Haha, true.

[taine]

I will preface this by saying that I am a bit of a grognard -- I dislike voiced PCs, hate auto dialogue, and strongly dislike the dialogue wheel. That said, I realize that Bioware is probably never going to get rid of those things entirely at this point, so I will try to outline my personal preferences of how things would work within that particular paradigm.

One, and this is important, find a way to display the entire line of dialogue. I don't see this as being hugely difficult to accomplish, even while using a dialogue wheel. It could be a tooltip, or the option could extend if you right click on it or something. It was less of a problem in DA2, but in the Mass Effect games I often have *no clue* what my character is going to say after selecting dialogue.

Two, and I realize this is a strain on the writing and voice acting budgets, but as little auto-dialogue as possible. Dragon Age is a game, not a movie, and I want to have agency over what my character does. There is no need to copy Mass Effect's style here, DA should be its own game.

Three, I like the idea of the dominant personalities, but I'd rather have them come through in ways other than auto-dialogue. How, you ask? Make certain dialogue options available only to characters with certain dominant personality types; have journal entries be subtly different depending on the character's personality; different responses to banter (which I believe DA2 already does). Honestly, this was probably my favorite idea contained in the DA2 dialogue system, I just think it could be applied more usefully.

Honestly, I'd just like DA to allow a higher level of player agency again, and dialogue is a pretty large part of this. It felt like a lot of that agency was stripped away in DA2, with the large time skips, long cinematics over which you had little control, etc. etc. I know this probably won't happen considering the direction Bioware has been going, but I'm allowed to dream, aren't I?

[Kavatica]

Ericander77 wrote...

i personally liked my character actually speaking!

the diologe choices in origins led me astray. i couldn't tell the emotion behind what i was saying.

I think that's actually what some of us liked about it - you could put your own emotions behind the words. And you had to think carefully about things that you said. But I also enjoyed DA2 and didn't mind having a voiced character most of the time. The only time it annoyed me was, like many have said, when Hawke said something I didn't want her to say. Especially when it came to her companions.

[bEVEsthda]

Ericander77 wrote...

i personally liked my character actually speaking!

the diologe choices in origins led me astray. i couldn't tell the emotion behind what i was saying.

If you wanted to ask a question or threw out this out of curiosity, here's how it works for us silent-protaginists:
We know the emotion because we play the role of the character, thus decides that.

If you just wanted to share how you experience the game - that's fine too.

[AkiKishi]

Leafs43 wrote...

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.

Well it's something you kind of get used to doing if you played a lot of PnP you don't even really think about doing it.

I'll try to give you an example. In DA you would presented with a list of possible responses, and depending on the character you were currently roleplaying some of those would fit better than others depending on the situation and some would be completely out of character.

Funny thing is if you ask a non roleplayer who the best Shepard is, they will almost always pick ME3. Because Shepard is more autonamous and the VA is better because it's not a series of sound bites. But those are the very things that people who want to play their own Shepard find abhorent.

There is no easy answer Bioware will just have to pick a direction and go with it. What I don't want is to end up with a very generic character because they are trying to please everyone.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

^^ Well said.

David Gaider wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...
Are you able to address the status of the request for a toggle to turn off the PC VO at this time?

I'm not certain how well that would work. We could turn off the VO, but not the cinematics involved... so it would result in a weird pantomime (reading the VO via subtitles, I suppose).

Works for me.

There's an element that would definitely be missed, considering what we write changes when we know at least part of the meaning is conveyed via the voice acting.

I'll never understand that bit. Can you provide an example from DA2 where what the PC says would be lacking expression that the player can only pick up through the VO? This is assuming that the radial emotion icons and PC animations are still present.

So, to be honest, what that question boils down to is: "Would you, as developers, be willing to put in a toggle so a player could experience the game other than as intended and in a potentially detrimental way?" And the answer is... maybe? I don't know. Part of the issue would be that any toggle we put in thus becomes something which we have to consider a legitimate way to play the game, and thus have to support (and by "support" I don't mean encourage but rather support technically as well as stylistically). We also have to ask ourselves whether this is something being asked for because those asking for it want the game to be something other than it really is, and whether offering it would actually give them that or just make it a more frustrating experience.

So, in a nutshell, you guys have to be happy that it looks good before it'll be OKed.

We can't, after all, deliberately put in things that we don't think work very well but use the excuse "it's optional". How many people, after all, might take that option because of what they think it will do, only to unintentionally lessen their experience?

Usually they change it back if they're that unsatisfied. Or uninstall the mod.

Besides, 'lessening' an experience is awfully subjective. You're talking about people who think VO for the PC is doing just that, remember?

Not being the person who would make the call on such a feature, I can't give you an answer. But that's the conversation I'd foresee. Hope that offers some insight.

Well, can you even say if it's being considered? You're suggesting that, at the least, the idea hasn't been written off.

The auto-dialogue will be minimal in the future, as you mention.

Promising...

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).

FWIW, frankness is appreciated.

[adlocutio]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Perhaps.  But I will not let the lack of roleplaying pass unmentioned.  I will not stand idly by while games that do not allow roleplaying are marketed as roleplaying games.

I don't blame you. I think many fail to understand the difference between roleplaying and simply making some narrative and dialogue choices.  Most, I would bet, think PC = avatar, or at the very least they think roleplaying means guessing which choice will grant the best in-game reward.

WotC has recently announced a sudden reversal in the direction of D&D from the heavily gamist 4E to a more simulationist/character-centric 5E which, in my opinion, allows and encourages roleplaying to a far greater degree.  I was holding out hope that, since WotC is a leader in the roleplaying game industry, their decision might influence what Bioware does on their future titles.  They seemed to make some of the same mistakes in hoping to draw new audiences, so it would make sense they might share a solution. 

What I've read so far does not give me hope for DA3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

adlocutio wrote...

I don't blame you. I think many fail to understand the difference between roleplaying and simply making some narrative and dialogue choices.  Most, I would bet, think PC = avatar, or at the very least they think roleplaying means guessing which choice will grant the best in-game reward.

WotC has recently announced a sudden reversal in the direction of D&D from the heavily gamist 4E to a more simulationist/character-centric 5E which, in my opinion, allows and encourages roleplaying to a far greater degree.

I completely agree.  Pure simulationist editions of D&D (like 2nd edition) allow for better story-telling, because they're less predictable.  They often produce worse gameplay, even in tabletop, because characters can die for such random reasons, but it's those same mechanics that allow such terrific storytelling.

But because those events are also governed by dice, you can't pre-write the narrative.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

I'm not certain how well that would work. We could turn off the VO, but not the cinematics involved... so it would result in a weird pantomime (reading the VO via subtitles, I suppose).

I basically just read the subtitles anyway.

I've said before that if Mass Effect had just let me turn off the voice (with no other changes), it would have been one of BioWare's better games.

So, to be honest, what that question boils down to is: "Would you, as developers, be willing to put in a toggle so a player could experience the game other than as intended and in a potentially detrimental way?" And the answer is... maybe? I don't know. Part of the issue would be that any toggle we put in thus becomes something which we have to consider a legitimate way to play the game, and thus have to support (and by "support" I don't mean encourage but rather support technically as well as stylistically). We also have to ask ourselves whether this is something being asked for because those asking for it want the game to be something other than it really is, and whether offering it would actually give them that or just make it a more frustrating experience.

This is the same sort of reasoning that led to the DA games not letting us adjust the friendly fire settings independently from difficulty.  And that was awful.

[jackofalltrades456]

The one thing that makes me sad about a voice protagonist is that we'll probably only have humans playable again. If they were to make the Origins races playable that would mean they would need at least six voice actors to voice all of them.

Modifié par jackofalltrades456, 22 mars 2012 - 11:53 .

[Maria Caliban]

adlocutio wrote...

I think many fail to understand the difference between roleplaying and simply making some narrative and dialogue choices.

cRPGs are more than narrative choices, but narrative choices remain the most important part of cRPGs.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 22 mars 2012 - 11:50 .

[adlocutio]

Maria Caliban wrote...

adlocutio wrote...

I think many fail to understand the difference between roleplaying and simply making some narrative and dialogue choices.

cRPGs are more than narrative choices, but narrative choices remain the most important part of cRPGs.

That's arguable. Skyrim in particular is a game in which narrative choices may not mean as much as other aspects... Much of the actual roleplaying is done in the gameplay itself.