130 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

@ Silfren:  The thread title says voiced protagonists don't necessarily make for better storytelling, you're arguing that voiced protagonists don't necessarily make for bad games.  It sounds to me like you and the OP are saying the same thing.  But I guess you just want to argue.

Actually I'm fairly certain I confused it with another thread title on a similar theme, because all my initial posts were made with the misconception on my part that the title was misleading from the OP.  My fault, readily conceded.  The perils of having multiple tabs open at once, I suppose. 

In any event, the implication of the OP, title and post both seems to be that a lot of us pro-voiced fans have claimed that having a voiced PC made DA2 an awesome game, as if it was the one and only selling point that a lot of us gave any credence to.  Otherwise, why would there need to be a thread dedicated to debating that very notion?

I haven't heard a single person who liked the voiced Hawke and prefers voiced PCs in general, make any such a claim.  Please do point me to all the posts where anyone claimed that DA2 was a terrific game specifically and solely due to having a voiced main character? 

Modifié par Silfren, 27 mars 2012 - 06:52 .

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Earlier, I cited Deus Ex as an example of a game where fans have addressed that they could see the entire lines of dialogue that the protagonist would speak - and it's something that Gaider has said won't be done. We saw bad paraphrasing in Leliana's Song, Dragon Age II, the two story DLCs that were released for Dragon Age II - and Gaider has acknowledged that entire lines of dialogue won't be avaliable for fans, in the way that it's avaliable in Deus Ex. Why should I have to deal with this type of paraphrasing in Dragon Age III when it disconnects me for the protagonist?

I can't imagine why Gaider or anyone else at Bioware would prefer the paraphrasing system over a full line of the actual text, to the extent that they refuse to even consider the alternative.  Other games that feature voiced PCs and full lines of dialogue show that there's nothing game-breaking about the experience.  I don't really see the point of paraphrasing in that context.  Outside of Bioware games, are there games featuring voiced PCs that paraphrase? 

Going against the trend is pointless when it is done solely to be contrary to other systems.  If it ain't broke it don't need fixing, and my (admittedly limited) experience with voiced PCs has been that there's nothing at all problematic about giving a player full lines of text.  Why on earth would Bioware insist on maintaining a paraphrase system that has been so poorly received, in light of the perfectly functional alternative?

[PinkShoes]

DA2 the voice took me out of the story cause i kept thinking "My character wouldnt say that, oh wait its not my character"

In DAO my character felt so much more my own. I gave her a personaility and it wasnt forced, i truely felt for all my Wardens. I find it hard to like my Hawke, i find some of the lines funny sure. But care? Not even a little bit. I care more about the children who were playing in the streets of Denerim than Hawke.

[DeadPoolX]

PinkShoes wrote...

DA2 the voice took me out of the story cause i kept thinking "My character wouldnt say that, oh wait its not my character"

I remember there being times in DA:O where none of the pre-selected text options suited me.  It really just comes down to what direction the writers want.  Everything else is an illusion of choice.

[PinkShoes]

DeadPoolMK wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

DA2 the voice took me out of the story cause i kept thinking "My character wouldnt say that, oh wait its not my character"

I remember there being times in DA:O where none of the pre-selected text options suited me.  It really just comes down to what direction the writers want.  Everything else is an illusion of choice.

Yeah i understand that im not saying DAO was perfect, but at least i knew exactly what they are saying in DAO. In DA2 its a guess everytime if what im picking is what they are gunna say and then they would say stuff without me picking.

[Silfren]

PinkShoes wrote...

DA2 the voice took me out of the story cause i kept thinking "My character wouldnt say that, oh wait its not my character"

In DAO my character felt so much more my own. I gave her a personaility and it wasnt forced, i truely felt for all my Wardens. I find it hard to like my Hawke, i find some of the lines funny sure. But care? Not even a little bit. I care more about the children who were playing in the streets of Denerim than Hawke.

Actually, no, even in Origins, you didn't create your character's personality. The claim is that Dragon Age: Origins provided players with a blank-slate character that afforded them the opportunity to create a personality out of whole-cloth, but this demonstrably false.  Even with that silent protagonist, players still operated within the bonds of preset dialogue choices, and, by extension, personality options.  We had a greater RANGE of dialogue options to choose from, but that is by no means the same thing as insisting that we were able to create an entire personality from scratch.  And the personality options were not really all that different from origins.  In a good many cases of scenes, two or three dialogues out of an available four-six were different phrasings for the same sentiment, conveying no differences in personality at all. 

It is all an illusion, and there is considerable debate on whether DA2 was truly worse than Origins in this regard, because quite a lot of people have commented favorably on the different tonal qualities available to Hawke as making all the difference in re-plays, insisting that a playthrough of Aggressive Hawke gives the game an entirely different feel from a Diplomatic one, and so on.  Also, Hawke actually is closer to a blank slate in terms of her family's backstory than any of the Wardens were.

 

Modifié par Silfren, 29 mars 2012 - 12:00 .

[DeadPoolX]

Silfren wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

DA2 the voice took me out of the story cause i kept thinking "My character wouldnt say that, oh wait its not my character"

In DAO my character felt so much more my own. I gave her a personaility and it wasnt forced, i truely felt for all my Wardens. I find it hard to like my Hawke, i find some of the lines funny sure. But care? Not even a little bit. I care more about the children who were playing in the streets of Denerim than Hawke.

Actually, no, even in Origins, you didn't create your character's personality. The claim is that Dragon Age: Origins provided players with a blank-slate character
that afforded them the opportunity to create a personality out of
whole-cloth, but this demonstrably false.  Even with that silent protagonist, players still operated within the bonds of preset dialogue choices, and, by extension, personality options.  We had a greater RANGE of dialogue options to choose from, but that is by no means the same thing as insisting that we were able to create an entire personality from scratch.  And the personality options were not really all that different from origins.  In a good many cases of scenes, two or three dialogues out of an available four-six were different phrasings for the same sentiment, conveying no differences in personality at all. 

It is all an illusion, and there is considerable debate on whether DA2 was truly worse than Origins in this regard, because quite a lot of people have commented favorably on the different tonal qualities available to Hawke as making all the difference in re-plays, insisting that a playthrough of Aggressive Hawke gives the game an entirely different feel from a Diplomatic one, and so on.  Also, Hawke actually is closer to a blank slate in terms of her family's backstory than any of the Wardens were.

Excellent post.  I've been trying to get this point across for a while now.

[batlin]

Silfren wrote...

Actually, no, even in Origins, you didn't create your character's personality. The claim is that Dragon Age: Origins provided players with a blank-slate character
that afforded them the opportunity to create a personality out of
whole-cloth, but this demonstrably false.  Even with that silent protagonist, players still operated within the bonds of preset dialogue choices, and, by extension, personality options.  We had a greater RANGE of dialogue options to choose from, but that is by no means the same thing as insisting that we were able to create an entire personality from scratch.  And the personality options were not really all that different from origins.  In a good many cases of scenes, two or three dialogues out of an available four-six were different phrasings for the same sentiment, conveying no differences in personality at all. 

It is all an illusion, and there is considerable debate on whether DA2 was truly worse than Origins in this regard, because quite a lot of people have commented favorably on the different tonal qualities available to Hawke as making all the difference in re-plays, insisting that a playthrough of Aggressive Hawke gives the game an entirely different feel from a Diplomatic one, and so on.  Also, Hawke actually is closer to a blank slate in terms of her family's backstory than any of the Wardens were.

There's no question that the choices are an illusion. A silent protagonist however provides a much better illusuion that you are the character. Again, in the case fo Hawke, you'll probably notice how the tonality of the good, neutral, and evil choices are drastically different and convey different personalities. With a silent protagonist, the tonality (and therefore the personality) is yours to decide on.

[Sutekh]

batlin wrote...
With a silent protagonist, the tonality (and therefore the personality) is yours to decide on.

But what happens when the reaction you get don't match your intended tone at all? Not because your PC is misunderstood (which can happen), but because the writers didn't think of this tone when they wrote the line, but another one entirely. How do you deal with that? How do you reconcile your freedom with their constraint, if you can feel it?

[Mmw04014]

batlin wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Actually, no, even in Origins, you didn't create your character's personality. The claim is that Dragon Age: Origins provided players with a blank-slate character
that afforded them the opportunity to create a personality out of
whole-cloth, but this demonstrably false.  Even with that silent protagonist, players still operated within the bonds of preset dialogue choices, and, by extension, personality options.  We had a greater RANGE of dialogue options to choose from, but that is by no means the same thing as insisting that we were able to create an entire personality from scratch.  And the personality options were not really all that different from origins.  In a good many cases of scenes, two or three dialogues out of an available four-six were different phrasings for the same sentiment, conveying no differences in personality at all. 

It is all an illusion, and there is considerable debate on whether DA2 was truly worse than Origins in this regard, because quite a lot of people have commented favorably on the different tonal qualities available to Hawke as making all the difference in re-plays, insisting that a playthrough of Aggressive Hawke gives the game an entirely different feel from a Diplomatic one, and so on.  Also, Hawke actually is closer to a blank slate in terms of her family's backstory than any of the Wardens were.

There's no question that the choices are an illusion. A silent protagonist however provides a much better illusuion that you are the character. Again, in the case fo Hawke, you'll probably notice how the tonality of the good, neutral, and evil choices are drastically different and convey different personalities. With a silent protagonist, the tonality (and therefore the personality) is yours to decide on.

Exactly. That is the key for why people find their Wardens to be more "theirs" than Hawke, because of the tones they can give. In DA2, you can only say a line ONE way. Absolutely no deviation, while in Origins, I could say something in a ton of different tones depending on my characters personality, what they though of the person they were talking to, and so much more. That doesn't exist with a voice protaganist. It couldn't.

For example; I have 2 different Wardens that romanced Alistair. When he calls both of the beautiful, they both respond with "You think I'm beautiful?" Based on their personalities, one says it in a shy, almost disbelieving voice, while the other responds in a more Ohyeahwinknudge kind of way. One dialogue option, vastly different ways of saying something.

[Silfren]

batlin wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Actually, no, even in Origins, you didn't create your character's personality. The claim is that Dragon Age: Origins provided players with a blank-slate character
that afforded them the opportunity to create a personality out of
whole-cloth, but this demonstrably false.  Even with that silent protagonist, players still operated within the bonds of preset dialogue choices, and, by extension, personality options.  We had a greater RANGE of dialogue options to choose from, but that is by no means the same thing as insisting that we were able to create an entire personality from scratch.  And the personality options were not really all that different from origins.  In a good many cases of scenes, two or three dialogues out of an available four-six were different phrasings for the same sentiment, conveying no differences in personality at all. 

It is all an illusion, and there is considerable debate on whether DA2 was truly worse than Origins in this regard, because quite a lot of people have commented favorably on the different tonal qualities available to Hawke as making all the difference in re-plays, insisting that a playthrough of Aggressive Hawke gives the game an entirely different feel from a Diplomatic one, and so on.  Also, Hawke actually is closer to a blank slate in terms of her family's backstory than any of the Wardens were.

There's no question that the choices are an illusion. A silent protagonist however provides a much better illusuion that you are the character. Again, in the case fo Hawke, you'll probably notice how the tonality of the good, neutral, and evil choices are drastically different and convey different personalities. With a silent protagonist, the tonality (and therefore the personality) is yours to decide on.

I already addressed this argument once the first time you wrote it in answer to one of my posts, and can only assume you didn't read it.  Firstly, the tones are NOT good, evil, and neutral, and you need to disabuse yourself of this notion, because if you actually do believe this is what the tones are meant to represent, then it is clearly part of the issue.  The tone options are Diplomatic, Humorous, and Aggressive, none of which exactly or automatically translate into good, evil, or neutral.  It should go without saying, but apparently it can't: evil people can be very diplomatic, having a sense of humor doesn't make you neutral, and being Aggressive hardly makes you evil.

Secondly, of COURSE the tones are drastically different and convey different personalities.  That's precisely what they're intended to do.

I'm repeating myself again, it seems: the tone and personlity of the silent Warden were NOT yours to decide on.  The game had predefined assumptions of what each dialogue choice represented as far as tone.  This is evidenced by how NPCs react to your dialogue.  The game doesn't give a flip what YOU the player want the silent dialogue to mean: it operates according to the meaning assigned to the dialogue by the game developers.   The only way to assert your own interpretations for the tone is to completely ignore the way the entirety of the game responds to you.

With either silent or voiced, you still are limited to the dialogue options, and by extension the personality options, the game provides to you.  Origins typically gave you between four and six dialogue choices, but generally no more than 3 basic personalities were conveyed, one often being represented by two or three different phrasings of the same sentiment.  The tone and personality are JUST AS MUCH yours to decide on with DA2 as they were in Origins.  That you didn't actually hear the tone in Origins doesn't mean you had greater choice, because you STILL were choosing from a preset list of tones, not something you just invented entirely on your own.  Why you can't seem to grasp this last fact is beyond me.  You NEVER make up your own tone or personality with a silent PC, you choose from a list of options provided to you.  This is the case whether the PC is silent or voiced.

[Mmw04014]

Silfren wrote...

batlin wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Actually, no, even in Origins, you didn't create your character's personality. The claim is that Dragon Age: Origins provided players with a blank-slate character
that afforded them the opportunity to create a personality out of
whole-cloth, but this demonstrably false.  Even with that silent protagonist, players still operated within the bonds of preset dialogue choices, and, by extension, personality options.  We had a greater RANGE of dialogue options to choose from, but that is by no means the same thing as insisting that we were able to create an entire personality from scratch.  And the personality options were not really all that different from origins.  In a good many cases of scenes, two or three dialogues out of an available four-six were different phrasings for the same sentiment, conveying no differences in personality at all. 

It is all an illusion, and there is considerable debate on whether DA2 was truly worse than Origins in this regard, because quite a lot of people have commented favorably on the different tonal qualities available to Hawke as making all the difference in re-plays, insisting that a playthrough of Aggressive Hawke gives the game an entirely different feel from a Diplomatic one, and so on.  Also, Hawke actually is closer to a blank slate in terms of her family's backstory than any of the Wardens were.

There's no question that the choices are an illusion. A silent protagonist however provides a much better illusuion that you are the character. Again, in the case fo Hawke, you'll probably notice how the tonality of the good, neutral, and evil choices are drastically different and convey different personalities. With a silent protagonist, the tonality (and therefore the personality) is yours to decide on.

I'm repeating myself again, it seems: the tone and personlity of the silent Warden were NOT yours to decide on.  The game had predefined assumptions of what each dialogue choice represented as far as tone.  This is evidenced by how NPCs react to your dialogue.  The game doesn't give a flip what YOU the player want the silent dialogue to mean: it operates according to the meaning assigned to the dialogue by the game developers.   The only way to assert your own interpretations for the tone is to completely ignore the way the entirety of the game responds to you.

With either silent or voiced, you still are limited to the dialogue options, and by extension the personality options, the game provides to you.  Origins typically gave you between four and six dialogue choices, but generally no more than 3 basic personalities were conveyed, one often being represented by two or three different phrasings of the same sentiment.  The tone and personality are JUST AS MUCH yours to decide on with DA2 as they were in Origins.  That you didn't actually hear the tone in Origins doesn't mean you had greater choice, because you STILL were choosing from a preset list of tones, not something you just invented entirely on your own.  Why you can't seem to grasp this last fact is beyond me.  You NEVER make up your own tone or personality with a silent PC, you choose from a list of options provided to you.  This is the case whether the PC is silent or voiced.

I completely disagree. The reason I've been able to create so many different Wardens, but not as many different Hawke's is because I felt the personalities were more limited in DA2. The tone is very much ours to decide simply because their is no voice actor delivering that tone. Whether the characters react appropriately is not the issue, since intent of one's words can be misinterpreted even in real life, and I found that to happen so infrequently that it didn't matter. Sure, we don't have total control. Bioware can't possibly give us every option imaginable, but I feel the way Origins is set up versus DA2 lends itself to more varied role playing.

[Silfren]

Mmw04014 wrote...

I completely disagree. The reason I've been able to create so many different Wardens, but not as many different Hawke's is because I felt the personalities were more limited in DA2. The tone is very much ours to decide simply because their is no voice actor delivering that tone. Whether the characters react appropriately is not the issue, since intent of one's words can be misinterpreted even in real life, and I found that to happen so infrequently that it didn't matter. Sure, we don't have total control. Bioware can't possibly give us every option imaginable, but I feel the way Origins is set up versus DA2 lends itself to more varied role playing.

Yes, one's words can be misinterpreted in real life, but this only goes so far in explaining how NPCs can react utterly differently from the expected tone.  To use your example of that bit of Alistair romance dialogue, I find that it stretches the bonds of believability that Alistair would respond exactly the same way whether "You think I'm beautiful" was said in a shy, disbelieving tone, and one that was provocative.

Misinterpreting one's words is one thing.  But people rarely misinterpret tone.  Say something in a nasty tone, and people are not going to react as if you spoke sweetly.  It is in this respect that the silent Warden is restricted to the tone implied by the reaction to their words by the world around them. 

So no, again, writing off NPC reactions as just their misinterpretation of your words is not a sufficient response.

Modifié par Silfren, 29 mars 2012 - 01:14 .

[Mmw04014]

Silfren wrote...

Mmw04014 wrote...

I completely disagree. The reason I've been able to create so many different Wardens, but not as many different Hawke's is because I felt the personalities were more limited in DA2. The tone is very much ours to decide simply because their is no voice actor delivering that tone. Whether the characters react appropriately is not the issue, since intent of one's words can be misinterpreted even in real life, and I found that to happen so infrequently that it didn't matter. Sure, we don't have total control. Bioware can't possibly give us every option imaginable, but I feel the way Origins is set up versus DA2 lends itself to more varied role playing.

Yes, one's words can be misinterpreted in real life, but this only goes so far in explaining how NPCs can react utterly differently from the expected tone.  To use your example of that bit of Alistair romance dialogue, I find that it stretches the bonds of believability that Alistair would respond exactly the same way whether "You think I'm beautiful" was said in a shy, disbelieving tone, and one that was provocative.

Misinterpreting one's words is one thing.  But people rarely misinterpret tone.  Say something in a nasty tone, and people are not going to react as if you spoke sweetly.  It is in this respect that the silent Warden is restricted to the tone implied by the reaction to their words by the world around them. 

So no, again, writing off NPC reactions as just their misinterpretation of your words is not a sufficient response.

Here is where I think it breaks down. The line itself is clear on if something is a nice response versus a mean response, but you can add smaller variations within that line. Instead of DA2's diplomatic/humorous/aggressive and that being it, Origins also has this but you can deviate within those set constraints based on your own imagination. It's not simply just saying a mean line and wanting a sweet response. It's more complex than that.

And again, I didn't feel that the NPC's misunderstood my tone very often. Usually their reactions make sense with the tone I'm using. My example before is good for this I think. I just played this not a couple hours ago so that's why it's fresh in my mind, but in response to "You think I'm beautiful," Alistair says "You're beautiful and you know it, etc." How he said it worked well with both of my two different characters.

Modifié par Mmw04014, 29 mars 2012 - 01:54 .

[Satyricon331]

Silfren wrote...To use your example of that bit of Alistair romance dialogue, I find that it stretches the bonds of believability that Alistair would respond exactly the same way whether "You think I'm beautiful" was said in a shy, disbelieving tone, and one that was provocative.

I agree with Mmw; there's no reason to think people are playing the game incorrectly when they view Alistair as having a slightly different personality on each of their different playthroughs, or when they view many NPCs (though likely not Alistair) as more concerned with the propositional content than the tone.  I mean, I keep seeing people make assertions players can't play that way but I don't see any actual argument to that effect.  Since in fact many people seem to have played that way, without having to "ignore the way the entirety of the game responds to you," it seems to me plainly factually incorrect to say they couldn't have done so.  I don't see why you think what you personally find believable in-game should so strongly determine what other people have to accept.  

I just don't understand the posters who are so determined to claim that the way other people played the game is somehow invalid when those people have been perfectly successful.  It's not an MMO.

[batlin]

Silfren wrote...

I already addressed this argument once the first time you wrote it in answer to one of my posts, and can only assume you didn't read it.  Firstly, the tones are NOT good, evil, and neutral, and you need to disabuse yourself of this notion, because if you actually do believe this is what the tones are meant to represent, then it is clearly part of the issue.  The tone options are Diplomatic, Humorous, and Aggressive, none of which exactly or automatically translate into good, evil, or neutral.  It should go without saying, but apparently it can't: evil people can be very diplomatic, having a sense of humor doesn't make you neutral, and being Aggressive hardly makes you evil.

Semantics. You know what I mean.

Secondly, of COURSE the tones are drastically different and convey different personalities.  That's precisely what they're intended to do.

Yes. And that's what makes it so disconnecting when you play a character that is generally "diplomatic" but wants to select a few "aggressive" options. It comes off like your PC has multiple personality disorder.

I'm repeating myself again, it seems: the tone and personlity of the silent Warden were NOT yours to decide on.  The game had predefined assumptions of what each dialogue choice represented as far as tone.  This is evidenced by how NPCs react to your dialogue.  The game doesn't give a flip what YOU the player want the silent dialogue to mean: it operates according to the meaning assigned to the dialogue by the game developers.   The only way to assert your own interpretations for the tone is to completely ignore the way the entirety of the game responds to you.

This is true...to a point. NPC's reactions to your dialogue options aren't nearly as beholden to your tonality as your own personality is to your tonality, same as NPC's tonality in their reaction is more beholden to their personality than your tonality.

With either silent or voiced, you still are limited to the dialogue options, and by extension the personality options, the game provides to you.  Origins typically gave you between four and six dialogue choices, but generally no more than 3 basic personalities were conveyed, one often being represented by two or three different phrasings of the same sentiment.  The tone and personality are JUST AS MUCH yours to decide on with DA2 as they were in Origins.  That you didn't actually hear the tone in Origins doesn't mean you had greater choice, because you STILL were choosing from a preset list of tones, not something you just invented entirely on your own.  Why you can't seem to grasp this last fact is beyond me.  You NEVER make up your own tone or personality with a silent PC, you choose from a list of options provided to you.  This is the case whether the PC is silent or voiced.

No. Tone isn't something that can be totally translated through writing unless you have descriptors like "'Get out of my way,' the Warden said harshly/playfully/warningly/silently." When you merely have a line, the tonality is pretty much yours to decide.

Modifié par batlin, 29 mars 2012 - 08:44 .

[lx_theo]

batlin wrote...

Dragon Age Origins? Silent protagonist, great story.

Dragon Age II? Voiced protagonist, mediocre story.

Discuss.

That is the worst argument I've ever read on the subject.

[Pasquale1234]

Silfren wrote...

Yes, one's words can be misinterpreted in real life, but this only goes so far in explaining how NPCs can react utterly differently from the expected tone.  To use your example of that bit of Alistair romance dialogue, I find that it stretches the bonds of believability that Alistair would respond exactly the same way whether "You think I'm beautiful" was said in a shy, disbelieving tone, and one that was provocative.

Misinterpreting one's words is one thing.  But people rarely misinterpret tone.  Say something in a nasty tone, and people are not going to react as if you spoke sweetly.  It is in this respect that the silent Warden is restricted to the tone implied by the reaction to their words by the world around them. 

So no, again, writing off NPC reactions as just their misinterpretation of your words is not a sufficient response.

And I still think that, while important, tone is not nearly as important as content.  In most cases, the only thing the dialogue wheel allows you to choose is tone.  You never know the content of what Hawke will say until s/he's said it.

The entire point of role-playing is.... role-playing.  Regardless of an NPC's reaction, if the protag has delivered a line that is in-character for the protag, you have successfully played that role.

There is no VA who is going to capture the different nuances of a take-charge, authoritative, groomed for command since childhood Noble versus a shy, introverted, never been out of the circle Mage, versus a Dwarf Commoner unfamiliar with the ways of the surface world and uncomfortable with making decisions for a group.  You cannot capture all of these different personality types or motives in a single pre-recorded line of dialogue - but they are all perfectly valid ways of role-playing a character.

Of course, I can't role-play at all when a VA and cinematic avatar are actually playing the role.  All I can really do is direct the segments playing on my screen...

[LobselVith8]

Silfren wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

DA2 the voice took me out of the story cause i kept thinking "My character wouldnt say that, oh wait its not my character"

In DAO my character felt so much more my own. I gave her a personaility and it wasnt forced, i truely felt for all my Wardens. I find it hard to like my Hawke, i find some of the lines funny sure. But care? Not even a little bit. I care more about the children who were playing in the streets of Denerim than Hawke.

Actually, no, even in Origins, you didn't create your character's personality. The claim is that Dragon Age: Origins provided players with a blank-slate character that afforded them the opportunity to create a personality out of whole-cloth, but this demonstrably false.  Even with that silent protagonist, players still operated within the bonds of preset dialogue choices, and, by extension, personality options.  We had a greater RANGE of dialogue options to choose from, but that is by no means the same thing as insisting that we were able to create an entire personality from scratch.  And the personality options were not really all that different from origins.  In a good many cases of scenes, two or three dialogues out of an available four-six were different phrasings for the same sentiment, conveying no differences in personality at all. 

It is all an illusion, and there is considerable debate on whether DA2 was truly worse than Origins in this regard, because quite a lot of people have commented favorably on the different tonal qualities available to Hawke as making all the difference in re-plays, insisting that a playthrough of Aggressive Hawke gives the game an entirely different feel from a Diplomatic one, and so on.  Also, Hawke actually is closer to a blank slate in terms of her family's backstory than any of the Wardens were.

While the options were preset, I think players had more range with The Warden. Players could decide if the Surana or Amell protagonist favored the Libertarian position, fans could decide if The Warden was atheist, fans had a greater variety of choices to make throughout the narrative (especially given how passive Hawke felt in comparison). I agree with you that Origins was far from perfect, but I think Dragon Age II was worse, in my humble opinion.

I understand what you're saying, Silfren - for example, the line in Return to Ostagar, where The Warden wants to burn Cailan's body because he's "of royal blood" was completely OOC for what I intended - but that only tells me that Dragon Age II should have improved upon what Origins established, not made it worse with automatic lines of dialogue, and poorly paraphrased lines. I think cinematics also play a role in how some fans feel disconnected from Hawke - his look of "interest" in Isabela happens outside our control, even if the player is intending for their respective Hawke to be homosexual or simply interested in another female companion.

[grumpyboobyhead]

Well it's a matter of opinion, I really don't think it's bad as long as there's a lot of diverse choices.
I think the best they can do OFC to alleviate that problem is just include extra dialogue depending on the companions you brought with you.
But I feel it's just as good without voice acting but they need to focus on diversity, that's what made DA:O so great.

[Silfren]

Mmw04014 wrote...

Here is where I think it breaks down. The line itself is clear on if something is a nice response versus a mean response, but you can add smaller variations within that line. Instead of DA2's diplomatic/humorous/aggressive and that being it, Origins also has this but you can deviate within those set constraints based on your own imagination. It's not simply just saying a mean line and wanting a sweet response. It's more complex than that.

Regarding the underlined bit, I disagree.  There were quite a few lines that were completely ambiguous in their meaning as long as they remained silent text, and the meaning they conveyed relied entirely on the tone.  It is in this respect that the tone is limited to the reaction of the NPC.  As I said, roleplaying it such that the NPC simply "took it the wrong way" is an inadequate response.  The NPCs will always, after all, respond in exactly ONE way to the same line of dialogue, no matter how many dozens of ways you intend it to mean.  

And again, I didn't feel that the NPC's misunderstood my tone very often. Usually their reactions make sense with the tone I'm using. My example before is good for this I think. I just played this not a couple hours ago so that's why it's fresh in my mind, but in response to "You think I'm beautiful," Alistair says "You're beautiful and you know it, etc." How he said it worked well with both of my two different characters.

Again, though, you are still limited. As before, I find that it seriously stretches the bonds of believability to suggest that you can literally apply any tone you want to any dialogue, given that NPCs will respond in precisely one, and only one, way.  Misinterpretation on the part of the NPC is at best a hand-waving away excuse, and it just doesn't work that well.  Unfortunately I can't bring the precise scene to mind, but I do know that there is at least one bit of dialogue between the Warden and Alistair that, the first time I came across it, I thought was benign, but when I selected it, was received as if I'd said something meanspirited.  When talking about TONE, I do not think it is an acceptable answer to simply say that Alistair misunderstood me.  

[Nomen Mendax]

batlin wrote...

Dragon Age Origins? Silent protagonist, great story.

Dragon Age II? Voiced protagonist, mediocre story.

Discuss.

I don't  think having or not having a voiced protagonist has any bearing on how good the story is.  I think having a voiced protagonist detracts from how some people (myself included) like to play CRPGs. 

[Satyricon331]

Silfren wrote...
Regarding the underlined bit, I disagree.  There were quite a few lines that were completely ambiguous in their meaning as long as they remained silent text, and the meaning they conveyed relied entirely on the tone.  It is in this respect that the tone is limited to the reaction of the NPC.  As I said, roleplaying it such that the NPC simply "took it the wrong way" is an inadequate response.  The NPCs will always, after all, respond in exactly ONE way to the same line of dialogue, no matter how many dozens of ways you intend it to mean.  

[...]  Again, though, you are still limited. As before, I find that it seriously stretches the bonds of believability to suggest that you can literally apply any tone you want to any dialogue, given that NPCs will respond in precisely one, and only one, way.  Misinterpretation on the part of the NPC is at best a hand-waving away excuse, and it just doesn't work that well.  Unfortunately I can't bring the precise scene to mind, but I do know that there is at least one bit of dialogue between the Warden and Alistair that, the first time I came across it, I thought was benign, but when I selected it, was received as if I'd said something meanspirited.  When talking about TONE, I do not think it is an acceptable answer to simply say that Alistair misunderstood me.  

But all this is is an argument that players aren't completely unlimited.  Well, sure, but it doesn't follow you don't create your character's personality, or that you have to ignore the game to vary the PC's tone for particular lines.

[Mmw04014]

Silfren wrote...

Mmw04014 wrote...

Here is where I think it breaks down. The line itself is clear on if something is a nice response versus a mean response, but you can add smaller variations within that line. Instead of DA2's diplomatic/humorous/aggressive and that being it, Origins also has this but you can deviate within those set constraints based on your own imagination. It's not simply just saying a mean line and wanting a sweet response. It's more complex than that.

Regarding the underlined bit, I disagree.  There were quite a few lines that were completely ambiguous in their meaning as long as they remained silent text, and the meaning they conveyed relied entirely on the tone.  It is in this respect that the tone is limited to the reaction of the NPC.  As I said, roleplaying it such that the NPC simply "took it the wrong way" is an inadequate response.  The NPCs will always, after all, respond in exactly ONE way to the same line of dialogue, no matter how many dozens of ways you intend it to mean.  

And again, I didn't feel that the NPC's misunderstood my tone very often. Usually their reactions make sense with the tone I'm using. My example before is good for this I think. I just played this not a couple hours ago so that's why it's fresh in my mind, but in response to "You think I'm beautiful," Alistair says "You're beautiful and you know it, etc." How he said it worked well with both of my two different characters.

Again, though, you are still limited. As before, I find that it seriously stretches the bonds of believability to suggest that you can literally apply any tone you want to any dialogue, given that NPCs will respond in precisely one, and only one, way.  Misinterpretation on the part of the NPC is at best a hand-waving away excuse, and it just doesn't work that well.  Unfortunately I can't bring the precise scene to mind, but I do know that there is at least one bit of dialogue between the Warden and Alistair that, the first time I came across it, I thought was benign, but when I selected it, was received as if I'd said something meanspirited.  When talking about TONE, I do not think it is an acceptable answer to simply say that Alistair misunderstood me.  

Yes, if you say a line such as "I'm going to slaughter you" and expect the character you are speaking to to act as if you were being super nice, then yes, that can't work no matter how much a roleplayer spins that. On that point, the dialogue system is limited. However, I'm not talking about being able to apply whatever tone you want to whatever line you want. I recognize the constraits of the system. I'm talking about lines that the writers intended to be, for example, nice lines and then putting your own spin on them but not deviating from the idea that this is fundamentally a nice response. That way it's still believable when an NPC responds positively. Sure, it is possible that lines are confused because we can't always be sure of the writers intent, and when it happens it breaks my immersion, but I move on because I believe for the most part, I get it right.

I also still believe that the "NPC just misunderstood me" is a valid interpretation. I'm not overly concerned with how an NPC reacts to what I say because I'm not controlling the NPC. I place being able to adequately roleplay my own character over the fluidity of the coversations between myself and others. Ultimately though, that's my own preference and I don't really think many people share that with me.

[Pasquale1234]

Mmw04014 wrote...

I also still believe that the "NPC just misunderstood me" is a valid interpretation. I'm not overly concerned with how an NPC reacts to what I say because I'm not controlling the NPC. I place being able to adequately roleplay my own character over the fluidity of the coversations between myself and others. Ultimately though, that's my own preference and I don't really think many people share that with me.

FWIW - I do.

My goal in roleplaying is to..... roleplay.  As long as I can successfully accomplish that, I'm pretty darned happy.

I also feel that those occasional possible misinterpretations are entirely in keeping with real human behavior.  It happens frequently in daily life.