833 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
If your goal is immersion in the game, then the more complete the character the better.

This doesn't ring true to me.  I don't think there's any difference in the degree of immersion, - if it's achieved.

But it seems like there are things to think about for awhile.
I don't play games for either movie- or book experiences. Some people obviously do, since they use these as examples all the time, for how they relate to games.

If that catches on as some kind of standard, for how games are made, that would be tragic in my view.
There should be resistance towards that. Bethesda is a bastion. But I'm also thinking the consolification of games is a threat that lead gamers relating towards like movie-experiences. There used to be more games with simulation content. Simulation - not observation - is the key.

Well the way I see it , it goes likes this.On one end of the scale you have TES and Fallout (new) and on the opposite end of the scale you have Final Fantasy and JRPGs. Somewhere along the middle you have Biowares cinematic games and things like Witcher2.

Obviously no one buys a Final Fantasy game thinking they can make their character. But Bioware try to sell you that idea, but it is at best a half truth in a paraphrased game. I'm happy as long as I know what I am getting.

[Lord Gremlin]

I honestly appreciate the frankness of David Gaider in this thread - now I'm certain that I won't be interested in DA3 even at bargain bin price and it will likely tank.
Basically, voiced protagonist AND no full information on things he/she's saying (such as tone and full phrase) is a disaster - for an RPG that is. I'm no longer sure which demographic Bioware are pursuing. So, they alienated most of DAO fanbase and gained some new customers with DA2, although much less (see sales).
Now what really gets my curiosity up... So, who are your potential customers after all?You're done with most of those who enjoy DAO, are you trying to expand number of those who liked DA2 by simply addressing fundamental issues like enemies spawning in waves and reused dungeons? Not really gonna work.
After DA2 and ME3 people will be looking for clues that DA3 sucks and not worth a buy. Voiced PC is a clue for some, not all, but I somehow lost faith in DA3 success anyway.

[ayelagin]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

I honestly appreciate the frankness of David Gaider in this thread - now I'm certain that I won't be interested in DA3 even at bargain bin price and it will likely tank.
Basically, voiced protagonist AND no full information on things he/she's saying (such as tone and full phrase) is a disaster - for an RPG that is. I'm no longer sure which demographic Bioware are pursuing.

I feel the same. A sad feeling, indeed, because that means that the world of Dragon Age which had such a huge potential for me began and ended with a masterpiece named DA:O. According to developers, they are not going to repeat the success of that game and will keep making third person voiced interactive movies. Good for them, but now I know what not to expect.

[Nurot]

David Gaider wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...
I just have one question:  Does a voiced protagonist mean a fixed protagonist?  

Depends on what you mean by "fixed". There are some people who would say that DA2 has a fixed protaganist, while others felt they had enough control over how their PC developed. I would say there is a range of customizability possible with a voiced protaganist, though every level of such comes with an associated cost-- both a physical cost (like the amount of voiceover) as well as a cost to the solidity of the story.

In my personal opinion, there are some sacrifices that moving to a completely fixed protaganist which go against the kind of game DA is... I wouldn't even say "which go against what RPG's should be", as you can have a great RPG (and there have been such) which have very fixed protaganists with a set name and set background which allow you to afterwards develop the character in a manner of your choosing. "Planescape: Torment" comes to mind.

I am just going to reply to this. I unfortunately don't have the time to read all posts in all threads.

I felt that I had better control over My Hawkes personality than over my Warden. Why? Because in DA2 most choices were not good or evil, but just different sides of the same coin. In DAO I felt that the choices were good, funny or evil. When I try to choose "the other side" in DAO, like Bhelen over Harrowmont or the elves instead of the middleway in the Nature of the beast I feel like my character does something really evil even though I try to play it like my character just sees the conflict from another angle.

It is especially bad in Nature of the beast where you are continuously betaten over the head with the fact that the elven guy is wrong and that there is a perfect solution present that will make everyone happy, I tried to play my chracter as a naive person that did not realise that he was being decieved and would therefore support the elves. But he would have to be really stupid to not realise that there was something fishy about the elven guy's story, since everyone is nagging him about the middleway option over and over again.

In the Bhelen/Harrowmont storyline, Bhelen is so obviously the "evil" choice that it is difficult to motivate a grey character into choosing him, although he turns out to be the more capable ruler (which was something that I loved, by the way). To avoid these evil choice issues that I am having in theses situations, I have to pretend a lot of stuff in conversations are not heard by my character, to make the choices more nuanced as in DA2. In DA2, choosing the templars side does not feel evil at all. When I play a templar supporting Hawke I can really understand My characters motivations behind that choice. It is all about the angle you are looking from.

I would also like to add that you pulled off the dominant tone really well in DA2. I didn't realise fully how well until I replayed the game with another dominant tone. My angry Hawke was as different as night and day to my peaceful Hawke. And they were played by the same voice actor. Amazing!

EDIT: I don't mind playing bad characters, but I do not feel like bad=evil... Evil is for story books for children..

Modifié par Nurot, 25 mars 2012 - 03:37 .

[adlocutio]

BobSmith101 wrote...
That being said you don't need to roleplay to become immersed in a game. You can easily become immersed in Final Fantasy even though the characters are interacting on their own.

This is true and is why, even though I don't feel playing as Sheperd is actually RP because I don't generate most of the character, I can still be immersed and have a great experience. If I come to the game thinking that I will generate the character myself, or that I always should,  then it's a problem.

BobSmith101 wrote...
If your goal is immersion in the game, then the more complete the character the better.

Yes, regardless of whether I complete the character or Bioware does.

BobSmith101 wrote...
The general downside of a game that allows a lot of roleplaying is it's a personal experience. A lot of if takes places in the mind of the player. Which is great for the player, but also makes it impossible to apply as a standard.

This is true, there can be no standard for what goes on in a player's head, but a well-made RPG will give roleplaying cues to help the player find direction.  If we go into a RPG with no knowledge of the game world and are given the freedom to create any character, we can, but if we make a character who isn't valid for the world in which it exists, then our experience will definitely suffer.

Origin stories are a great example of cues. By playing one we learn much of what we need to know about the roleplaying choices actively supported by the game. So when we start the main game, we already have an idea what is a valid RP concept for the game and what isn't.

[wsandista]

Nurot wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...
I just have one question:  Does a voiced protagonist mean a fixed protagonist?  

Depends on what you mean by "fixed". There are some people who would say that DA2 has a fixed protaganist, while others felt they had enough control over how their PC developed. I would say there is a range of customizability possible with a voiced protaganist, though every level of such comes with an associated cost-- both a physical cost (like the amount of voiceover) as well as a cost to the solidity of the story.

In my personal opinion, there are some sacrifices that moving to a completely fixed protaganist which go against the kind of game DA is... I wouldn't even say "which go against what RPG's should be", as you can have a great RPG (and there have been such) which have very fixed protaganists with a set name and set background which allow you to afterwards develop the character in a manner of your choosing. "Planescape: Torment" comes to mind.

I am just going to reply to this. I unfortunately don't have the time to read all posts in all threads.

I felt that I had better control over My Hawkes personality than over my Warden. Why? Because in DA2 most choices were not good or evil, but just different sides of the same coin. In DAO I felt that the choices were good, funny or evil. When I try to choose "the other side" in DAO, like Bhelen over Harrowmont or the elves instead of the middleway in the Nature of the beast I feel like my character does something really evil even though I try to play it like my character just sees the conflict from another angle.

It is especially bad in Nature of the beast where you are continuously betaten over the head with the fact that the elven guy is wrong and that there is a perfect solution present that will make everyone happy, I tried to play my chracter as a naive person that did not realise that he was being decieved and would therefore support the elves. But he would have to be really stupid to not realise that there was something fishy about the elven guy's story, since everyone is nagging him about the middleway option over and over again.

In the Bhelen/Harrowmont storyline, Bhelen is so obviously the "evil" choice that it is difficult to motivate a grey character into choosing him, although he turns out to be the more capable ruler (which was something that I loved, by the way). To avoid these evil choice issues that I am having in theses situations, I have to pretend a lot of stuff in conversations are not heard by my character, to make the choices more nuanced as in DA2. In DA2, choosing the templars side does not feel evil at all. When I play a templar supporting Hawke I can really understand My characters motivations behind that choice. It is all about the angle you are looking from.

I would also like to add that you pulled off the dominant tone really well in DA2. I didn't realise fully how well until I replayed the game with another dominant tone. My angry Hawke was as different as night and day to my peaceful Hawke. And they were played by the same voice actor. Amazing!

EDIT: I don't mind playing bad characters, but I do not feel like bad=evil... Evil is for story books for children..

I must disagreee with you, in DA2 my Hawke(s) had the choice of 3 personalities, Funny, Diplomatic, or Violent, all of which are all pretty one-dimensional. My Warden(s) however could have more complex personalities because I could imagine the tone they used. My main Warden, James Cousland, for example was generally a nice guy, but he could be violent in certain situations, like with the bandits outside Lothering or when confronting Howe. My first Hawke, Jacob Hawke, was much less complex than James. There were certain situations I thought he should have done something violent, but since he was more diplomatic, he would just play nice, even if it was somebody he should have been hostile to if he acted in a way consistent with how i was trying to RP him.

As far as DA:O presenting the choices as good or eveil it is all a matter of justification. Bhelen was a horrible person, but under him Orzammar would benefit, but under Harrowmont who was almost unquestionably the better man Orzammar would slowly deteriorate.

Also to get somewhat off-topic, I never thought of any of my Wardens as "the Warden", I always associated them with thier first names. With the Hawkes, no matter which one I was playing they were always "Hawke" to me. Does anyone else do the same?

[nightscrawl]

Nurot wrote...

In the Bhelen/Harrowmont storyline, Bhelen is so obviously the "evil" choice that it is difficult to motivate a grey character into choosing him, although he turns out to be the more capable ruler (which was something that I loved, by the way).

I've had a lot of discussions on the whole Behlen/Harrowmont issue, whether it is right or not to interfere with another nation/culture's governance, even if you really disagree with something like their Caste system (Star Trek's Prime Directive comes to mind); and if picking a ruler who might be in it for selfish interests (Behlen likes power) might not still be better in the long run because he is the more capable leader. For those reasons, I think this single choice is one of the most difficult in the entire game, especially as there is no way to avoid it (like you can avoid sacrificing Isolde to save Connor by going to the Circle.)

Unfortunately, I was biased in my very first play before ever getting to the choice since my very first character was a dwarven noble. It took me about three or four subsequent plays to finally go ahead and pick Behlen and see what happened.

wsandista wrote...

Also to get somewhat off-topic, I never thought of any of my Wardens as "the Warden", I always associated them
with thier first names. With the Hawkes, no matter which one I was playing they were always "Hawke" to me. Does anyone else do the same?

Sort of... but in DAO your Warden was hardly ever referred to by name, and when s/he was it was by the title of Warden. So in that sense it is similar to Hawke. However, since "Hawke" is in actual name and not a title, we hear it more often as you would with someone's name, which I actually liked better since use of a name seemed more natural, even if it isn't the given name I chose for her.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 25 mars 2012 - 10:16 .

[ReshyShira]

wsandista wrote...

I must disagreee with you, in DA2 my Hawke(s) had the choice of 3 personalities, Funny, Diplomatic, or Violent, all of which are all pretty one-dimensional. My Warden(s) however could have more complex personalities because I could imagine the tone they used. My main Warden, James Cousland, for example was generally a nice guy, but he could be violent in certain situations, like with the bandits outside Lothering or when confronting Howe. My first Hawke, Jacob Hawke, was much less complex than James. There were certain situations I thought he should have done something violent, but since he was more diplomatic, he would just play nice, even if it was somebody he should have been hostile to if he acted in a way consistent with how i was trying to RP him.

As far as DA:O presenting the choices as good or evil it is all a matter of justification. Bhelen was a horrible person, but under him Orzammar would benefit, but under Harrowmont who was almost unquestionably the better man Orzammar would slowly deteriorate.

I agree, I greatly enjoyed the moral ambiguity in DA:O as well as the ability to be the character rather than simply piloting it.  I want a western RPG where I am the protagonist, I don't want to listen to some angsty ponce that I only can nudge him/her in the direction I rather they go and spend most of the time making sure they don't get killed in combat.

[Morroian]

wsandista wrote...

I must disagreee with you, in DA2 my Hawke(s) had the choice of 3 personalities, Funny, Diplomatic, or Violent, all of which are all pretty one-dimensional. My Warden(s) however could have more complex personalities because I could imagine the tone they used. 

There are actually 16 different types of responses, funny diplomatic and aggressive are just the ones they use to track the personaility. For each of my Hawke's I was able to build a character beyond the types of responses.

[adlocutio]

I thought of a Dragon Age-specific example of why the dominant-tone based banter/autodialogue system is irreperably broken:

Let's say Hawke is a genuinely nice guy (read: diplomatic) but, like mosk Kirkwallers (sp) he despises and fears mages. Or Qunari. Or Elves. Doesn't really matter. The dominant-tone based banter system ENSURES that, no matter how much Hawke hates them, he will be diplomatic/nice to them in autodialogue.

The sytem guarantees that the character will be broken. Not only this character, but ANY character who holds one of these (presumably) majority opinions. It doesn't respect that dialogue choices are always made by the player so that they are situationally appropriate for the character.

A dominant-tone based system can never model this.

[Sutekh]

Nurot wrote...

I felt that I had better control over My Hawkes personality than over my Warden. Why? Because in DA2 most choices were not good or evil, but just different sides of the same coin. In DAO I felt that the choices were good, funny or evil. When I try to choose "the other side" in DAO, like Bhelen over Harrowmont or the elves instead of the middleway in the Nature of the beast I feel like my character does something really evil even though I try to play it like my character just sees the conflict from another angle.

<snip>

I think it's really, really a matter of perception and how you "rationalize" the choices and motivation of your PC. I never felt those choices were "good" or "evil", but more nuanced and coming from different reasons, their origin (cultural background) being a major one.

My canon Warden, a Dalish, didn't give a nug's tail about Dwarven politics and chose Bhelen for pragmatic reasons, even going as far as choosing Branca over Caridin. He chose Zathrian and didn't hesitate for one sec to wipe out the werewolves out of loyalty to his Dalish blood. A misguided choice, maybe, but not "evil". He also favored the Annulment in a "better safe than sorry" move, because at the time he knew zilch about mages. Maybe not the best choice, but not "evil". Consequently, he had to sacrifice Isolde, since there weren't any Circle mage left. Forced choice. He even killed those three shemlens at the very beginning, because I pictured him with a very "Power to the Dalish" frame of mind, and starting quite xenophobic only to change later.

There were very few times when I felt a big red "This is the evil choice" sign flashing, and only for minor choices, such as killing the wounded soldier in the Korcari Wilds. All major choices were in fact difficult and forced me to pause and think what would this Warden do. In the end, it allowed me to create a complex, nuanced and evolving personality.

Now, in DA2, it was more difficult for me. Not because of the tones, which in fact helped a lot, but only because we had only one Hawke to start from. I never felt compelled to choose the same tone during the whole game, and a couple of my Hawkes even ended with a different personality than the one they started with. So they didn't feel one-dimensional either.

But this is where auto-dialog can be problematic (and yes, this is my subtle attempt to get back on-topic). A dominantly grumpy Hawke doesn't have to be grumpy all the time and, above all, with everyone. For instance, Grumpy Hawke who likes Isabela has no reason to talk to her so aggressively when she asks for a drink. It's very, very OOC for this particular Grumpy Hawke. I'm a firm partisan of the Voiced PC, but those auto-dialog times are the only ones when I really wished he would just shut up.

On the other hand, I loved that he participated in party banter, and I don't see how it can be done without auto-dialogs, so...

[Direwolf0294]

Nurot wrote...
I felt that I had better control over My Hawkes personality than over my Warden. Why? Because in DA2 most choices were not good or evil, but just different sides of the same coin. In DAO I felt that the choices were good, funny or evil. When I try to choose "the other side" in DAO, like Bhelen over Harrowmont or the elves instead of the middleway in the Nature of the beast I feel like my character does something really evil even though I try to play it like my character just sees the conflict from another angle.

I actually felt the opposite. In DA2 I felt like I was was forced to play one of three Hawkes. Either I was good/paragon Hawke, sarcastic/jerky Hawke or evil/renegade Hawke. In DA:O thought I felt like while there were choices that were clearly more good or evil aligned everything was much more shades of grey.

Also, because of the lack of VA , I could RP my characte a lot better. In DA2 if you didn't go all top, middle or bottom choices and instead switched them up it made it seem like Hawke was suffering from some sort of personality disorder because of how much the voice changes. It wasn't just an angry tone coming into your voice if you made an aggresive dialogue choice or a sarcastic tone entering your voice if you made a middle choice, it was like your entire personality had changed. 

Having said all that I do support a voiced character for DA3, provided BW offers more choices for conversations then just good/middle/bad. Also if I don't just get stuck playing a human. I'd prefer to play a silent elf over playing a voiced human.

[Dessalines]

I enjoy the voice over. It makes repeated playthroughs more interesting.

[goatman42]

I loved female Hawke's voice. Her British sarcasm was always fantastic

[AkiKishi]

nightscrawl wrote...

Nurot wrote...

In the Bhelen/Harrowmont storyline, Bhelen is so obviously the "evil" choice that it is difficult to motivate a grey character into choosing him, although he turns out to be the more capable ruler (which was something that I loved, by the way).

I've had a lot of discussions on the whole Behlen/Harrowmont issue, whether it is right or not to interfere with another nation/culture's governance, even if you really disagree with something like their Caste system (Star Trek's Prime Directive comes to mind); and if picking a ruler who might be in it for selfish interests (Behlen likes power) might not still be better in the long run because he is the more capable leader. For those reasons, I think this single choice is one of the most difficult in the entire game, especially as there is no way to avoid it (like you can avoid sacrificing Isolde to save Connor by going to the Circle.)

Unfortunately, I was biased in my very first play before ever getting to the choice since my very first character was a dwarven noble. It took me about three or four subsequent plays to finally go ahead and pick Behlen and see what happened.

wsandista wrote...

Also to get somewhat off-topic, I never thought of any of my Wardens as "the Warden", I always associated them
with thier first names. With the Hawkes, no matter which one I was playing they were always "Hawke" to me. Does anyone else do the same?

Sort of... but in DAO your Warden was hardly ever referred to by name, and when s/he was it was by the title of Warden. So in that sense it is similar to Hawke. However, since "Hawke" is in actual name and not a title, we hear it more often as you would with someone's name, which I actually liked better since use of a name seemed more natural, even if it isn't the given name I chose for her.

One of the things about the Origins was how it sometimes gave you a personal stake in the story. My first character a Dwarf Commoner never even considered the politics and did it for his sister.

Being refered to by title is just a point of commonality for the VA's. You can't record all the possible names. A good example of this is FFX where you can name the protagonist, but he's never refered to directly. It's somewhat strange in a voiced game.
A title allows full character generation while still being able to refer to the character in some manner in a voiced game.Being a something is much more open than being a someone. Fundamental difference between DA and DA2.

[xxLDZxx]

pls add a option.

Mute Player Avatar.

[Wulfram]

Diplomatic Hawke in particular has a tendency to be rather too goody goody. Almost to the point of self parody.

Modifié par Wulfram, 26 mars 2012 - 10:37 .

[SeanMurphy2]

You should never have introduced dominant tone. It gives dialogue a repetitive structure.

I loved Origins because there was not that forced "good neutral evil" structure to every situation or conversation. You as writers had the freedom to think up whatever dialogue options you wanted.

Also it forces the player to read the language of each line and comprehend what it means. WIth games like DA2 or ME, I find myself just quickly clicking the red/blue colour or the tone picture.

[Adanu]

So now giving your PC a consistent personality is a bad thing? Interesting...

[Meris]

Adanu wrote...

So now giving your PC a consistent personality is a bad thing? Interesting...

What I find interesting is how there actually are people who prefer the voiced protagonist but aren't obnoxious like this. A Silent Protagonist isn't what you (don't) see on the screen.

All of my Wardens had a consistent personality (except for one, but that's another story).

The dungeon master doesn't play the characters.

Modifié par Meris, 26 mars 2012 - 01:40 .

[xSTONEYx187x]

As long as the auto-dialogue isn't like Mass Effect 3, then I'll consider buying DA III, if it can be like Mass Effect 1 or 2 with regards to player input, I'd be a happy chappy.

[Rurik948]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

As long as the auto-dialogue isn't like Mass Effect 3, then I'll consider buying DA III, if it can be like Mass Effect 1 or 2 with regards to player input, I'd be a happy chappy.

Agree

[Lord Gremlin]

Adanu wrote...

So now giving your PC a consistent personality is a bad thing? Interesting...

Yes. Because many people have inconsistent personalities. Or hide something. Heh, such as many mass murderers/rapists/molesters are actually very nice people in their daily life. Yeah, extreme example, but still.
The thing is, if I play an RPG I expect to be allowed to create MC personality as I go. If I want a consistent personality I can play actions. Kratos in GoW3 has a very set and consistent personality. Plus leveling up, unlocking new gear and gaining XP. But GoW series is not an RPG series.

[Carmen_Willow]

David Gaider wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Though I guess I shouldn't get carried away and assume that this implies a reduction in the dominant tone dialogue which we saw in DA2?

We're still playing with exactly what we're going to do on this front, and with the use of the wheel in general, but no-- I wouldn't make that assumption. If you have suggestions on the use of tone, or the use of the dominant tone in particular, I'd like to hear them.

If, however, one's suggestion is "present the dialogue exactly as you did in DAO", then I'm afraid that's not really in the cards. I'm not going to display the full line of dialogue in a voiced-PC system. There are, however, alternatives to the way we did it in DA2.

I like having a voiced PC and I enjoyed the "tone" as well. If you didn't like the "tone" you could always choose another for a few turns on the dialogue and eventually the game went with you. More choices on the wheel would be great, but I understand the limits of budgets.  Perhaps a fourth personality choice would work or make the "paragon" dialogue not quite so "mary sue."  When I returned to play Origins this last time, I missed hearing my character's voice.

[Wulfram]

Adanu wrote...

So now giving your PC a consistent personality is a bad thing? Interesting...

Unless your PC picks very strongly one way, dominant tone can work against having a consistent personality, because the game has no way of understanding why you're picking differently for the Blood Mages trying to kill you than you are for the scared kids.