833 réponses à ce sujet

[Gotholhorakh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The player needs to control what his character says. All of the time. Never can the PC act or speak without the player having directed him to do so.

Agreed. This is a very simple and self-evident concept in a role-playing game.

If RPG designers had Three Laws, this would probably be one of them.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Please let us pause during conversations and cutscenes. 
I don't want to have to reload and replay 20 minutes of gameplay because
I missed a line when my kid walked into the room.

Please let us pause everything.

Agree again. I have lost count of the number of times I have missed exposition or had to do long replays because of kids walking in, phone/front door going, sound bugs in the game etc. when a pause/save would have prevented it.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 21 mars 2012 - 11:24 .

[AkiKishi]

Corto81 wrote...

Skyrim, KOA:R, DA:Origins, etc.

So yeah... Why do you guys feel that strongly that voiced character is a MUST, when it so obviously hampers your budget and takes away time from adding content and depth to the game?

Because, content > cosmetics.

90% of KOA was fine with a silent protagonist. However the bits where you were doing inspirational speeches was lame. Either another character did the speech for you, or you choose a dialogue line and watched your silent protagonist "deliver" it. Part voiced is used by a lot of JRPGs major scenes are voiced, minor (conversation) is not.

I have not played Skyrim I wait for GOTY's of Bethesda games so I don't know if the are similiar instances in Skyrim. Of course you could design around those momemts to make it less obvious , but that depends on the story you want to tell.

[Lunar Savage]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Lunar Savage wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
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.

That's a shame to hear.  All I can say is my money is not exactly in the cards.  What happened to the David Gaider that more-or-less wrote Ascension?  You added a poop-ton of options & dialogue to the original bland ending to ToB (with some help, sure, Pocket Plane / Weimer ftw).  We saw every line of dialogue, they were quite nuanced, & many resulted in the same outcome but expressed different player reactions.

What happened to you since then, that you went away from that approach?  I mean that seriously, not like "what happened to you man?!?!?", but like "what changed in your approach?"  Why do you see that Ascension approach as bad now?

You make an interesting point. A lot of the old dialog choices would sometimes give you similar responses, and Hell, even in some cases, the same response. And while that's great from a roleplay stand point and your character, I'm guessing the guys at Bioware looked at this and said, "screw it, let's just reduce it to a single option so we don't have to waste time on writing out several options with the same results".

Which, if that's the case, I say they went the wrong direction. And should have focused more on diversifying the responses of the NPCs. Doing that would add some serious damn replay value.

It's a case of costs. Back when you had written dialogue it was not much more effort to write 6 responses than it was to write 3. Anyone who created a NWN scenerio will be familiar with that. If on the other hand you had to pay someone to speak those lines, then that extra multiplied over the whole game, it becomes a huge burden.

In real terms focusing on replay value only covers a small % of buyers, you are lucky if most people finish a game, let alone replay it. As such, it will likely be quite low down on the priority list.

Also a good point. I guess that's always kind of bugged me. Too much about the money. But I do realize these guys have to put food on the table and thus, will not do it for free. Especially the voice actors (imo, we reeeeaally don't need them as they generally serve to bring a RPG down in quality of content).

Eh, you know what? Screw it. I'm just gonna go make my own damn game.

[LobselVith8]

Corto81 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If player VO is your issue, however, then that is simply a non-starter. There are benefits that come with player VO as well as weaknesses, but on the whole we feel that the benefits outweigh the weaknesses. That is going nowhere, and there's no point dilly-dallying around it if that's where your enjoyment breaks down.

Honest question here, David, can you give us a short answer as to why you guys believe the voiced protagonist is necessary? Or better than a silent protagonist?

Almost all of the legendary RPGs had silent protagonists (off the top of my head, I think Witcher series and Vampire series had voiced ones, but with a SET character - Geralt, Christoph, etc.).
BG, PS:T, NWN, IWD, Morrowind, Oblivion, KOTOR, etc etc etc.

Even the most recent ones to achieve major success had silent protagonists and very few complaints were raised about it.
Skyrim, KOA:R, DA:Origins, etc.

So yeah... Why do you guys feel that strongly that voiced character is a MUST, when it so obviously hampers your budget and takes away time from adding content and depth to the game?

Because, content > cosmetics.

That's a good question when you consider that Origins promoted a silent protagonist as giving more control and immersion to the player than a voiced protagonist. Since they went on record as saying that a silent protagonist was more effective than a voiced protagonist for this type of game when they were releasing Origins, I'm not certain why they changed their minds.

[wsandista]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If player VO is your issue, however, then that is simply a non-starter. There are benefits that come with player VO as well as weaknesses, but on the whole we feel that the benefits outweigh the weaknesses. That is going nowhere, and there's no point dilly-dallying around it if that's where your enjoyment breaks down.

Honest question here, David, can you give us a short answer as to why you guys believe the voiced protagonist is necessary? Or better than a silent protagonist?

Almost all of the legendary RPGs had silent protagonists (off the top of my head, I think Witcher series and Vampire series had voiced ones, but with a SET character - Geralt, Christoph, etc.).
BG, PS:T, NWN, IWD, Morrowind, Oblivion, KOTOR, etc etc etc.

Even the most recent ones to achieve major success had silent protagonists and very few complaints were raised about it.
Skyrim, KOA:R, DA:Origins, etc.

So yeah... Why do you guys feel that strongly that voiced character is a MUST, when it so obviously hampers your budget and takes away time from adding content and depth to the game?

Because, content > cosmetics.

That's a good question when you consider that Origins promoted a silent protagonist as giving more control and immersion to the player than a voiced protagonist. Since they went on record as saying that a silent protagonist was more effective than a voiced protagonist for this type of game when they were releasing Origins, I'm not certain why they changed their minds.

I think I know, The "Action-RPG" crowd needs to have a voiced protagoinst so they can avoid actual roleplaying, and instead focus on plowing through the story as quickly as possible to get to the combat.

[David Gaider]

Corto81 wrote...
Honest question here, David, can you give us a short answer as to why you guys believe the voiced protagonist is necessary? Or better than a silent protagonist?

Almost all of the legendary RPGs had silent protagonists (off the top of my head, I think Witcher series and Vampire series had voiced ones, but with a SET character - Geralt, Christoph, etc.).
BG, PS:T, NWN, IWD, Morrowind, Oblivion, KOTOR, etc etc etc.

Even the most recent ones to achieve major success had silent protagonists and very few complaints were raised about it.
Skyrim, KOA:R, DA:Origins, etc.

So yeah... Why do you guys feel that strongly that voiced character is a MUST, when it so obviously hampers your budget and takes away time from adding content and depth to the game?

Because, content > cosmetics.

I don't think a voiced protaganist is fundamentally better than a silent one. Each approach has its advantages as well as its drawbacks. The problem as we saw it was with Origin's approach: with the game having such a huge cinematic element to its storytelling, having a silent PC when the rest of game's characters were fully-voiced was an issue.

Was it an issue to someone who enjoyed the game overall? Of course not. Sometimes I think there's an element to fans where they blend things they enjoy or hate together-- they forget it's possible to enjoy something despite its weaknesses-- but I'm not going to presume to tell the individual what they should or should not prefer. The difference here is with regards to the kind of game we wanted to make. A game doesn't have to be cinematic in order to be enjoyable, and an RPG even less so, but that's what we want-- for many reasons, right from those top-level marketing folks down to the team level. I won't get into it beyond that. but this is where BioWare has been heading for a long time... and while someone may not agree with that approach and thinks we should be making an RPG of a flavor closer to their personal preference (and that's fine), that is simply what we do.

[eyesofastorm]

David Gaider wrote...

Corto81 wrote...
Honest question here, David, can you give us a short answer as to why you guys believe the voiced protagonist is necessary? Or better than a silent protagonist?

Almost all of the legendary RPGs had silent protagonists (off the top of my head, I think Witcher series and Vampire series had voiced ones, but with a SET character - Geralt, Christoph, etc.).
BG, PS:T, NWN, IWD, Morrowind, Oblivion, KOTOR, etc etc etc.

Even the most recent ones to achieve major success had silent protagonists and very few complaints were raised about it.
Skyrim, KOA:R, DA:Origins, etc.

So yeah... Why do you guys feel that strongly that voiced character is a MUST, when it so obviously hampers your budget and takes away time from adding content and depth to the game?

Because, content > cosmetics.

I don't think a voiced protaganist is fundamentally better than a silent one. Each approach has its advantages as well as its drawbacks. The problem as we saw it was with Origin's approach: with the game having such a huge cinematic element to its storytelling, having a silent PC when the rest of game's characters were fully-voiced was an issue.

Was it an issue to someone who enjoyed the game overall? Of course not. Sometimes I think there's an element to fans where they blend things they enjoy or hate together-- they forget it's possible to enjoy something despite its weaknesses-- but I'm not going to presume to tell the individual what they should or should not prefer. The difference here is with regards to the kind of game we wanted to make. A game doesn't have to be cinematic in order to be enjoyable, and an RPG even less so, but that's what we want-- for many reasons, right from those top-level marketing folks down to the team level. I won't get into it beyond that. but this is where BioWare has been heading for a long time... and while someone may not agree with that approach and thinks we should be making an RPG of a flavor closer to their personal preference (and that's fine), that is simply what we do.

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

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

I don't think a voiced protaganist is fundamentally better than a silent one. Each approach has its advantages as well as its drawbacks. The problem as we saw it was with Origin's approach: with the game having such a huge cinematic element to its storytelling, having a silent PC when the rest of game's characters were fully-voiced was an issue.

What was that issue?  What was the problem with having a silent protagonist in a cinematic game?

Yes, that means you can't actually put the PC in any cinematics where he does anything.  But that's a design issue, not a gameplay issue.  What problem do the players have as a result of having a silent PC in a cinematic game?

The difference here is with regards to the kind of game we wanted to make. A game doesn't have to be cinematic in order to be enjoyable, and an RPG even less so, but that's what we want-- for many reasons, right from those top-level marketing folks down to the team level. I won't get into it beyond that. but this is where BioWare has been heading for a long time... and while someone may not agree with that approach and thinks we should be making an RPG of a flavor closer to their personal preference (and that's fine), that is simply what we do.

I'm not going to say you shouldn't make a cinematic game (though I will say that I don't want to play Metal Gear Solid), but I will insist that voicing the PC in a cinematic game doesn't actually make the cinematic game any better.  It causes huge problems for a wide swath of fans, and the people who appreciate it already liked the silent cinematics enough to play the game.

When you manage to make a voiced PC game that allows the same range of control as your silent PC games did, then I'll accept it.  Not a moment sooner.

[David Gaider]

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.

[eyesofastorm]

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". 

I mean Hawke (not specifically, but as an example of a character that I consider fixed) or more fixed than Hawke.

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 21 mars 2012 - 03:57 .

[Lakhi]

If the voicing was akin to what they did in the witcher 1 (geralt saying EXACTLY what was on the screen) then I'd have no problem with the va. In fact, if the overall meaning of what is said is at least somewhat proportional to what I say, then I'm fine with it.

Aside from the ending, one of the biggest qualms I had was the way in which shepard would reply without any input from me, while it was usually something I would say, it did detract from my overall enjoyment of the conversations and the rpg experience.

So please, make the prompts exact or much more in line with what we're trying to say, tangents just suck.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

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 would say that Torment's PC wasn't fixed at all, because the player had total control over the sort of person he was.  The player was the source of all of The Nameless One's beliefs, values, and goals.

That is not true of Hawke.  If you can let us be in control of what the DA3 PC believes (so that he doesn't sneer at slavers unbidden, for example), then you'll have gone a lone way toward making DA3 a good game in my eyes.

[Corto81]

David Gaider wrote...

Corto81 wrote...
Honest question here, David, can you give us a short answer as to why you guys believe the voiced protagonist is necessary? Or better than a silent protagonist?

Almost all of the legendary RPGs had silent protagonists (off the top of my head, I think Witcher series and Vampire series had voiced ones, but with a SET character - Geralt, Christoph, etc.).
BG, PS:T, NWN, IWD, Morrowind, Oblivion, KOTOR, etc etc etc.

Even the most recent ones to achieve major success had silent protagonists and very few complaints were raised about it.
Skyrim, KOA:R, DA:Origins, etc.

So yeah... Why do you guys feel that strongly that voiced character is a MUST, when it so obviously hampers your budget and takes away time from adding content and depth to the game?

Because, content > cosmetics.

I don't think a voiced protaganist is fundamentally better than a silent one. Each approach has its advantages as well as its drawbacks. The problem as we saw it was with Origin's approach: with the game having such a huge cinematic element to its storytelling, having a silent PC when the rest of game's characters were fully-voiced was an issue.

Was it an issue to someone who enjoyed the game overall? Of course not. Sometimes I think there's an element to fans where they blend things they enjoy or hate together-- they forget it's possible to enjoy something despite its weaknesses-- but I'm not going to presume to tell the individual what they should or should not prefer. The difference here is with regards to the kind of game we wanted to make. A game doesn't have to be cinematic in order to be enjoyable, and an RPG even less so, but that's what we want-- for many reasons, right from those top-level marketing folks down to the team level. I won't get into it beyond that. but this is where BioWare has been heading for a long time... and while someone may not agree with that approach and thinks we should be making an RPG of a flavor closer to their personal preference (and that's fine), that is simply what we do.

Thank you for answering.

I think the issue many people seem to have ( and me personally) is that Hawke ends up a mish-mash, a character that's suppose to feel mine, but always ended up feeling Bioware's.

Witcher, PS:T, Vampire, and a Hawke-molded Shepard (or vice-versa) always felt mine, despite being (half)set characters.

Another problem is that where Shepard was likeable etc., Hawke seemed to rub plenty of people the wrong way (me included). He was just either bland or annoying too much of the time.
But that's besides the point.

I'd prefer a silent protagonist because IMHO that meands significant funds and time go to making more content rather than prettying up the limited content already there.

But if you guys make DA3 protagonist as likeable and as "mine" as the DA:O Warden, I won't mind the voice-over at all.

In the end, if the decision was made upstairs, the writers just have to do best with what they have.
And apart from (IMO) DA2 and now ME3, BW writers have shown they are the best in the business, so that's one area I'm hoping you guys pull through.

Modifié par Corto81, 21 mars 2012 - 04:39 .

[David Gaider]

Corto81 wrote...
I think the issue many people seem to have ( and me personally) is that Hawke ends up a mish-mash, a character that's suppose to feel mine, but always ended up feeling Bioware's.

Witcher, PS:T, Vampire, and a Hawke-molded Shepard (or vice-versa) always felt mine, despite being (half)set characters.

Is it possible that the difference was that you expected it to work as Origins did, and thus the feeling you got was due to the disparity in the execution styles, versus the lack of similar expectations you had with those other titles? Or do you think it's down to the actual execution? I imagine the answer would be debateable, depending on who's answering, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

[Dave of Canada]

Personally, Hawke was rather predefined but not enough that the player was still able to impose some sense of self onto the character. My character's justifications and ways of behaving are different than my friend's character and such, despite me not having as much say with the character as I'd like (In other words, kind of middle ground).

Unfortunately, there were a few times when this went wrong and it somewhat hurt "my" character. Certain quests would end in a certain way and I'd be unable to try (and fail) something which I've suggested I'd do. For example, the end of MOTA where my anti-Qunari character would've really wanted to have the scroll.

I could threaten Tallis, though she'd shrug it off and my Hawke would stand there and do absolutely nothing. It would've been better had he tried to do what the action implied, regardless of had he failed.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 21 mars 2012 - 05:32 .

[Joy Divison]

I do agree with David Gaider's logic that a voiced protagonist works better in RPG games in which the entire world emotes and speaks...having a emotionless mute can be jarring and there is only so much an over the shoulder perspective can obscure the stark contrast between the protagonist and the game world. I don't think the silent vs. voiced option can be objectively measured so as to conclude one is better than the other so I don;t really begrudge Bioware for whatever direction they go in.

What I don't understand is why auto-dialogue must or should accompany the voiced protagonist or, as David Gaider has said, "having more of a 'scene' asscoiated with it (ie. those sections where there's some back-and-forth conversation, and you're not picking every response), but personally I'd prefer if it came as a result of a direction the player already provided." I fail to see how a "direction" I provided in a completely different context maybe months or even years ago and potentially before a personal watershed should automatically dictate how I respond now. Not only is this infinitely infuriating, it precludes character development or having a capricious or pragmatic character at all.

Maybe it is just a pet peeve of mine, but I cant stand it when people purport to speak for me or assume what I want to do.

[bEVEsthda]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I don't think a voiced protaganist is fundamentally better than a silent one. Each approach has its advantages as well as its drawbacks. The problem as we saw it was with Origin's approach: with the game having such a huge cinematic element to its storytelling, having a silent PC when the rest of game's characters were fully-voiced was an issue.

What was that issue?  What was the problem with having a silent protagonist in a cinematic game?

                                ...well?...          ...


(tick tock, tick tock, tick tock....)             (one-reel  movie suddenly starts playing in the back of the head) 

(Man standing, features in shadow, but clearly wearing a tie, watches monitor from behind, over shoulders. "Why doesn't the Warden say something? I think we have an issue here.")   

[Pzykozis]

Joy Divison wrote...

I do agree with David Gaider's logic that a voiced protagonist works better in RPG games in which the entire world emotes and speaks...having a emotionless mute can be jarring and there is only so much an over the shoulder perspective can obscure the stark contrast between the protagonist and the game world. I don't think the silent vs. voiced option can be objectively measured so as to conclude one is better than the other so I don;t really begrudge Bioware for whatever direction they go in.

What I don't understand is why auto-dialogue must or should accompany the voiced protagonist or, as David Gaider has said, "having more of a 'scene' asscoiated with it (ie. those sections where there's some back-and-forth conversation, and you're not picking every response), but personally I'd prefer if it came as a result of a direction the player already provided." I fail to see how a "direction" I provided in a completely different context maybe months or even years ago and potentially before a personal watershed should automatically dictate how I respond now. Not only is this infinitely infuriating, it precludes character development or having a capricious or pragmatic character at all.

Maybe it is just a pet peeve of mine, but I cant stand it when people purport to speak for me or assume what I want to do.

For me I kind of enjoyed the auto-dialogues, they allowed little back and forths to play out effectively seamlessly, being given the option to choose seemingly next to insignificant pieces of text every couple of seconds really breaks up the flow of the conversation can't say I've seen them in ME3 but atleast in DA2 with the effect of dominant tone the character always made sense, because any actual emotional input that was required was given whilst the more flowing dialogue flowed, just basically played out more naturally for me.

Also, Hawke, was easily defineable enough for me, but then I slip into that easily even without the ability to choose whats going on the character simply becomes me, or an extension of my will or what have you, only very few situations where the plot overruled agency did it break down, i.e. end of MOTA where my dashing roguey hawke didn't make off with the swag because the story dictated that to not happen, but I don't know whether I'd say that thats a problem with being able to control or identify with hawke or a problem with narrative coming in abit heavy handed.

[Kavatica]

Is there any way to have a voiced protagonist where you don't actually watch them speak? Or are those two things part of the same package? I'm just wondering if this is part of why some feel that the silent Warden in DAO was more "personal" than a voiced Hawke. For example, in the dialogues in DAO where I am looking over the Warden's shoulder and watching the other character's reaction to what I "say" as opposed to watching Hawke say the lines and then seeing the other character's reactions. This also might take away some of the surprises when it comes to the protagonist doing something unexpected...like Hawke making certain facial expressions that I might not have wanted her to make. Then again, that might take away from some of the fun things about having a voiced protagonist. But it might be a way to compromise and address the whole outsider-looking-in issue that some experience with a voiced protagonist.

Modifié par Kavatica, 21 mars 2012 - 06:17 .

[Dave of Canada]

Pzykozis wrote...

For me I kind of enjoyed the auto-dialogues, they allowed little back and forths to play out effectively seamlessly, being given the option to choose seemingly next to insignificant pieces of text every couple of seconds really breaks up the flow of the conversation can't say I've seen them in ME3 but atleast in DA2 with the effect of dominant tone the character always made sense, because any actual emotional input that was required was given whilst the more flowing dialogue flowed, just basically played out more naturally for me.

The auto-dialogue is fine provided everything Shepard says is perfectly in-character, my Renegade Xenophobic Pro-Cerberus Shepard on the other hand would've been completely out of character for pretty much the entire time. Least with the ME1/ME2/DA2 system, you're able to decide how your character responds in the conversation.

Hell, least DA2 had little back-and-forths based on the selection you did earlier. That's about as much "auto-dialogue" that I'm fine with, as the player was still able to guide the conversation. In a good mood with your friend? Be humoristic! You're pissed off at them? Rawr, tell them to go screw themselves!

ME3's system just assumes what you would've picked and goes with it. I hate X character but Shepard is telling them they're best friends.

"STOP IT, STOP IT!"

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 21 mars 2012 - 05:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The auto-dialogue is fine provided everything Shepard says is perfectly in-character

Sure, but the odds of that ever being true are effectively zero.

The writers don't know our characters.

[RosaAquafire]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Personally, Hawke was rather predefined but not enough that the player was still able to impose some sense of self onto the character. My character's justifications and ways of behaving are different than my friend's character and such, despite me not having as much say with the character as I'd like (In other words, kind of middle ground).

Unfortunately, there were a few times when this went wrong and it somewhat hurt "my" character. Certain quests would end in a certain way and I'd be unable to try (and fail) something which I've suggested I'd do. For example, the end of MOTA where my anti-Qunari character would've really wanted to have the scroll.

I could threaten Tallis, though she'd shrug it off and my Hawke would stand there and do absolutely nothing. It would've been better had he tried to do what the action implied, regardless of had he failed.

I pretty much 100% agree to this, though I'd like to add that the pre-defined Hawke/Shep route really does limit your full scope of options. You can do a snarky Hawke who gets gentle and kind when things get serious. Or a mean Hawke who gets snarky when they're uncomfortable. But you can't do a shy Hawke, or a bookish Hawke, or a bumbling Hawke, or a sneaky, backstabbing, lying Hawke, or a passive aggressive Hawke. You could do that with the Warden. While there was the same amount of lines, there was more opportunity for nuance IN those lines. I think that the way to accomodate for this would be to add MORE lines, as opposed to less/the same amount. You'd still be losing customization (there are some characters there will just never be a demand to play as with a preset voice, sadly) but you wouldn't be losing as much.

Modifié par RosaAquafire, 21 mars 2012 - 05:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Is it possible that the difference was that you expected it to work as Origins did, and thus the feeling you got was due to the disparity in the execution styles, versus the lack of similar expectations you had with those other titles? Or do you think it's down to the actual execution? I imagine the answer would be debateable, depending on who's answering, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

I expected Hawke to say the things I told him to say, and he didn't do that.  Instead, he said things that bore only a passing resemblance to things I told him to say, and often directly contradicted my reasons for giving him that instruction in the first place.

[Wyndham711]

I think BioWare's current style is schizophrenic and unsatisfying no matter what way I approach it. It is supposed to give me freedom to create my character. And it does give some, just enough to render their prewritten personalities bland and generic and unspecific, and at the same time making the character predetermined to the degree that my imagination goes out of the window.

It is a case of the worst of both worlds. I would like you to decide on a direction. Either go back to the DA:O model with freedom of imagination/interpretation, or stop giving us half hearted character creation options that only end up limiting you in terms of script writing. Geralt is awesome because he is prewritten to be a deep and very particular kind of personality. Hawke is boring because he is written to be generic and multipurpose.

Modifié par Wyndham711, 21 mars 2012 - 05:50 .

[Dave of Canada]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I expected Hawke to say the things I told him to say, and he didn't do that.  Instead, he said things that bore only a passing resemblance to things I told him to say, and often directly contradicted my reasons for giving him that instruction in the first place.

"I hate slavers. >:I"
*sells Fenris to Danarius*