7 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

A character that sacrifices nothing, except out of inconvenience or the bad decisions of friends, is not heroic. I'm happy to see a PC that is capable, confident, and successful, but not at all happy to see a PC that makes comments like "apparently I'm the only one that can fix everyone's problems in this city." That kind of sarcastic commentary is a not amusing to me, especially in that it's accurate. Victory through attrition is the most dramatic.

Master Chief is a Fratt Boy hero. Hawke is a fan service hero. The Warden dies to save Ferelden from the Blight and the rest of the world from a greater conflict. A whole lot more of column B and a whole lot less of column A, please.

[John Epler]

PurebredCorn wrote...

Diplomatic Hawke, male or female, is humble and utterly lacking snark of any kind.

Which is really the point - the player has the option to play Hawke as they choose, and if you choose to go all sarcastic snark - well, it seems a little odd to then complain 'but my Hawke always had a sarcastic response to everything!'. Yes, that's true - but that's because you chose to play your Hawke that way. Diplomatic Hawke was unassuming and humble.

I mean, aside from the lack of VO, you could play the Warden as every bit as much a cocky jerk as Hawke. Perhaps it's the lack of voiced lines that give people the feeling that there's a significant difference?

[John Epler]

BobSmith101 wrote...

John Epler wrote...
I mean, aside from the lack of VO, you could play the Warden as every bit as much a cocky jerk as Hawke. Perhaps it's the lack of voiced lines that give people the feeling that there's a significant difference?

With an unvoiced line the nature in which it is delivered is left to you. With a voiced line, that is determined by the VA and direction they get.

To a degree, sure. The way you -think- it's delivered is up to you, certainly. But in the end, the other characters are reacting to the delivery that the writer intended. Sure, you can say 'well maybe they just misunderstood me', and that's probably fine for some people, but eventually you either have to mentally fall in line with what the writer intended or create a world where everyone is completely incapable of understanding each other.

And that's fine - some people really don't like the voiced protagonist, and that's an entirely valid opinion. I won't suggest otherwise - however, let's be up front that it's all about perception and presentation. The reality of the game is, in the end, people will still react to a very specific delivery of the line - you're just not seeing it in action.

Modifié par John Epler, 30 avril 2012 - 05:41 .

[John Epler]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

John Epler wrote...
I mean, aside from the lack of VO, you could play the Warden as every bit as much a cocky jerk as Hawke. Perhaps it's the lack of voiced lines that give people the feeling that there's a significant difference?

I think that's a lot of it, at least for me.  Unvoiced lines gives the player greater control of personality and delivery.  Voicing means you are limited to the personality and delivery provided by the VA.

Nailed it. I'm calling this the smoking gun. All I ever hear in Hawke's voice is over-confidence. I never heard the Warden's voice, and I was well aware of the personality of the Warden, since I created it, and was never presented with any example to the contrary.

I was well aware of the tone and intent of anything Hawke said, because as the player, I guided the character through those dialogue options. And, were this not a non-spoiler forum, I could point out specific instances in-game where the VA's tone, even on a sarcastic playthrough, was not overconfident. But I suppose that's something that each individual player has to hear and assess for themselves. Running through the full game, seeing the events unfold and then moving your character through various decisions probably has just as much to do with how someone might interpret character motivation and intent than hearing the lines audibly delivered.

Which is really what it comes down to - it's a personal thing. For some people, the VA is going to be a problem. Either they don't like the specific VA, or they don't think the advantages of a voiced protagonist outweighs the disadvantages, or they don't like our specific implementation of a voiced protagonist. And that's fine - I sympathize with these people, and I can understand where they're coming from. For others, it won't be a problem. Either they just don't see it as an issue, or they believe the advantages of a voiced protagonist outweigh the disadvantages, or they just really liked Boulton or Wyatt.

I think part of it depends on how you see your role as the player in these games. For someone who believes they're shaping a character from a sort of state of tabula rasa, anything that takes away control (whether implicit or explicit) will be a problem, and undoubtedly voice acting will fall into that category. Whereas someone who sees their role as shaping a character who, in turns, shapes the world through choices they made - the voice acting may be a minor obstacle, or it may be a good thing, but either way they're still fully able to realize their goals.

I don't know. I've never really seen Hawke as particularly smug or 'over-the-top' - and as for a 'humorous' line that's delivered without a trace of smugness, well, 'You always were a heartbreaker, Bethany' is right there at the top of the list for me.

[John Epler]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Filament wrote...

Your impression of the game is still incredibly skewed, apparently, if you think Hawke "conquers" the city. The champion title does not mean much at all.

When it should, considering the "Champion" is invited to parties and his/her opinion is apparently influential in conflicts.

What's the point of giving it the air of importance if the game is going to fall short on delivering how it is important? I can't build political connections or undermine the authority of the person I see as the true threat to Kirkwall.

I can't do much of anything with a role that's chalked up to being important by citizens but is displayed in-game as being nothing more then a figurehead title.

It -is- important to the citizens, and likely to the minor nobles, because Hawke liberated the city. And, while the major movers and shakers might take issue with someone being catapulted to a position with some political clout, they can't really speak out against it without it causing a lot of ill feelings among the citizenry. I always saw it as putting Hawke in a position where he can't be ignored, and where he has enough influence (due to his actions in Act Two) that having him support one side over the other could be seen as beneficial insofar as popular opinion is concerned.

It's like in any democracy that has multiple parties - sure, that party that holds six seats may be tiny, but if they have the ability to sway the vote then the bigger parties are going to be treating them with a reverence and a respect far in excess of the importance that their size would suggest.

[John Epler]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

You know what I'd like to see? Better reasons why the PC can't take an action. DAII had many horrific cases of this: Petrice, Bethany, and Tallis most notably come to mind.

Especially when the persona of Kirkwall's Templars decrees that they should've overreacted to Bethany being found out.

Dessalines wrote...


I would go into more detail, but again someone puts a thread that can only be disproving by listing examples in the non spoiler section.

You know what I've noticed? Much of where the places the devs interact are in the non-spoiler forum. I don't know if they actively read the spoiler section where much of the flaws in-game can be listed without fear or worry, but they generally interact in the non-spoiler sections more then the others.

It's interesting. Not that I'm saying it's a bad thing. I appreciate the interaction in the non-spoiler forums. For all I know they lurk in those threads reading the posts but don't post themselves, but generally the story flaws are pointed out in those sections in sufficient detail that something can be learned.

Well, the spoiler sections are, generally speaking, a lot more nitpicky - not in a bad way, but in a 'if we say anything, it tends to get cited as the Word of God and used as a blunt instrument in any further debates'. Plus, a lot of the discussion is quite interesting without us participating. That's not to say we don't read it, of course, but even if we -had- answers, some of those answers might rely on spoilering Things Yet to Come.

As for Hawke, would it suffice if I said we're aware of the problem regarding Hawke being proactive? There's really nothing else I can say beyond that - and, yes, sometimes there is going to be a certain amount of 'But Thou Must'. Sure, I never wanted to be a Warden, but aside from cutting to the end of the game with an epilogue slide of 'And then everyone died because you, sir, are a jerk', there weren't a lot of places that could've gone without an absolutely obscene amount of additional zots, which would've then been cut from elsewhere.

And I suppose you could say 'then write a story that doesn't require that!', but that's the story we wanted to tell. One thing we're focusing on going forward, though, is always providing a good, clear motivation as to the player's actions, and then avoiding putting them in situations where simply being active would solve a whole lot of problems down the road - if I could go back and redo it, I would've done the entire Grace scene differently to explain why you don't just shoot her in the face with a bow. The 'captured' scene in Mark of the Assassin was a direct response to this - 'why don't you just fight your way out?' 'Well, there are a lot of guards.' 'Okay, but I can kill a lot of guards.' 'Okay, it's a -lot- a lot of guards.'

[John Epler]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

John Epler wrote...
As for Hawke, would it suffice if I said we're aware of the problem regarding Hawke being proactive?

 

John Epler wrote... 
 One thing we're focusing on going forward, though, is always providing a good, clear motivation as to the player's actions, and then avoiding putting them in situations where simply being active would solve a whole lot of problems down the road - if I could go back and redo it, I would've done the entire Grace scene differently to explain why you don't just shoot her in the face with a bow. The 'captured' scene in Mark of the Assassin was a direct response to this - 'why don't you just fight your way out?' 'Well, there are a lot of guards.' 'Okay, but I can kill a lot of guards.' 'Okay, it's a -lot- a lot of guards.'

Thank you John. Now I think I can smile already. 

Sci-fi/contemporary have it a lot easier.

'Why don't you just kill them?'

'They're talking with you over a loudspeaker, and the room you're in is bulletproof/rapidly filling with gas.'

'Well played.'

[David Gaider]

I am sad to report that I've read this entire thread.