343 réponses à ce sujet

[Lethys1]

Fallout 1 and 2 both exhibit about ten thousand times more choices when completing quests than DA2 does.  DA2 made an emphasis on getting voice actors and voiced protagonist instead of giving us even any amount of choice with regards to plot.  Hnece, no change on plot regardless of choices.

Would you relinquish some of your Voice Acting for more control and options over the plot of the game?

Would you take a Silent Protagonist to return to the level of choice seen in DA:O?

Would you take mostly text in exchange for the level of control of Fallout 1 and 2 on plot?

I personally say yes, resoundingly to both.  I don't need voice acting, and it obviously is the biggest expense and reason why games have changed so drastically.  As shown by Bioware's DA2 outing, we've seen that we can't simply get an all-encompassing game, especially with SWTOR taking DA resources. 

I just don't understand why, other than voice acting and graphics, games from 1999 are significantly better than games made with massive budgets with better technology more than ten years later.  That's why we're seeing Wasteland 2 on Kickstarter, Overhaul Games doing BG: Enhanced, and indie devs trying to create new IPs with the same feel as those from the past.

[wsandista]

YES!

[Tommyspa]

I would say no, because I don't really want to feel like I'm retrogaming and buying new games in 2012 for 60 bucks a pop. Besides the premise of VA having anything to do with plot control is a bit ridiculous.

[wsandista]

Tommyspa wrote...

I would say no, because I don't really want to feel like I'm retrogaming and buying new games in 2012 for 60 bucks a pop. Besides the premise of VA having anything to do with plot control is a bit ridiculous.

So your PC in ME or DA2 has never said something you didn't explicitly consent to, you know like Auto-Dialogue?

[Lethys1]

Tommyspa wrote...

I would say no, because I don't really want to feel like I'm retrogaming and buying new games in 2012 for 60 bucks a pop. Besides the premise of VA having anything to do with plot control is a bit ridiculous.

Voicing about 15 or so different lines for each character involved in every quest gets extremely expensive.  In a game like Fallout, they'll acknowledge your race, standing, skills, and give you branching dialog options.

If they need to voice all of those options in a modern game, that gets very costly and becomes thousands and thousands of lines of recorded voice acting.  That plus gamers hating repeated voices, such as in Oblivion, means more actors, who get paid in accordance with the Actor's Guild for minimums that are very high.

So yes, I'd say they relate directly.  Games are noticeably written to be ambiguous so that any character can be addressed using the same recorded voice acting work.  In text based games, this problem simply doesn't exist.

For proof, just look at the way the ME games respond to all but the most drastic Renegade/Paragon choices.  Look at how little things change in DA2, whether you make a joke or say something nice or even something mean.  If they acknowledge a choice in phrasing, it usually is only a few words.  

Modifié par Lethys1, 10 mai 2012 - 04:51 .

[Cyne]

Probably not, it would feel like the series was regressing.

[Tommyspa]

wsandista wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

I would say no, because I don't really want to feel like I'm retrogaming and buying new games in 2012 for 60 bucks a pop. Besides the premise of VA having anything to do with plot control is a bit ridiculous.

So your PC in ME or DA2 has never said something you didn't explicitly consent to, you know like Auto-Dialogue?

You assume everyone needs to play under the illusion that they created a character created by other people who tell me everything I am going to say or do in the course of a video game written by someone else?

[wsandista]

Cyne wrote...

Probably not, it would feel like the series was regressing.

Yes because reusing the same areas over and over, dumbing down everything for call of duty morons, and an overly exaggerated art-style is such great progress.

[wsandista]

Tommyspa wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

I would say no, because I don't really want to feel like I'm retrogaming and buying new games in 2012 for 60 bucks a pop. Besides the premise of VA having anything to do with plot control is a bit ridiculous.

So your PC in ME or DA2 has never said something you didn't explicitly consent to, you know like Auto-Dialogue?

You assume everyone needs to play under the illusion that they created a character created by other people who tell me everything I am going to say or do in the course of a video game written by someone else?

But I consent when I pick those lines, with Auto-Dialogue or paraphrases I do not consent.

[Lethys1]

Cyne wrote...

Probably not, it would feel like the series was regressing.

If you got well over 100 hours worth of gameplay, crafting both weapons and armor, many branching side missions, morality measurements, decent graphics, three or four different ways of solving every quest, permanent reputations based on actions, character creation having an impact on narrative, and many different endings for the price of giving up voice acting.  You see that as regression?  

Every gameplay aspect from a game from 1998, other than graphics and voice acting, is better than this trash of 2011.  I call that regression most of all.

I see regression when I choose to help the mages and still get attacked by mages, or help the Templars and still get attacked by the Templars.  I see regression when perfectly good combat systems are overhauled and lose any semblance of tactical planning, which is then further ruined by reduced effectiveness of tanks and continuous spawning.  And I see regression when thought is removed from dialog choices, and now I just choose based on the icons.

Regression comes in the form of weak, stereotypical companions fighting in a poorly established location which is visually ugly and offers no exploration.

DA2 already regressed beyond even early 1990s adventure games as far as plot goes.  And I mean the games where you have to type in instructions as opposed to clicking on options in a UI.

[Randomjack]

Not a chance. Fallout, I found, had all the choices and detail in the world and I still found the story nowhere near as immersive as any Bioware game.

Really, I like the system where its at in DA2 - The conversations don't sound like your npcs are talking to a brick wall, Hawke's voice is solid, and they virtually always say more or less what I wanted.

[Cyne]

wsandista wrote...

Cyne wrote...

Probably not, it would feel like the series was regressing.

Yes because reusing the same areas over and over, dumbing down everything for call of duty morons, and an overly exaggerated art-style is such great progress.

DA2 has its flaws, but a voiced protagonist is not one of them IMO. The silent protagonist in DA:O felt out of place for a lot of reasons, not the least being that everyone else had a distinguishable voice and personality. At moments like just before the end battle, a grand speech by the protagonist would have done wonders for immersion.

[Tommyspa]

wsandista wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

I would say no, because I don't really want to feel like I'm retrogaming and buying new games in 2012 for 60 bucks a pop. Besides the premise of VA having anything to do with plot control is a bit ridiculous.

So your PC in ME or DA2 has never said something you didn't explicitly consent to, you know like Auto-Dialogue?

You assume everyone needs to play under the illusion that they created a character created by other people who tell me everything I am going to say or do in the course of a video game written by someone else?

But I consent when I pick those lines, with Auto-Dialogue or paraphrases I do not consent.

It is still forced consent no matter it voiced or text. Do you stop playing because you do not like what choices your character has or do you get over it, such as you would during auto-dialogue? They are exactly the same to me.

[wsandista]

Cyne wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Cyne wrote...

Probably not, it would feel like the series was regressing.

Yes because reusing the same areas over and over, dumbing down everything for call of duty morons, and an overly exaggerated art-style is such great progress.

DA2 has its flaws, but a voiced protagonist is not one of them IMO. The silent protagonist in DA:O felt out of place for a lot of reasons, not the least being that everyone else had a distinguishable voice and personality. At moments like just before the end battle, a grand speech by the protagonist would have done wonders for immersion.

So is watching a movie or TV show immersive for you?

[Tommyspa]

Cyne wrote...

DA2 has its flaws, but a voiced protagonist is not one of them IMO. The silent protagonist in DA:O felt out of place for a lot of reasons, not the least being that everyone else had a distinguishable voice and personality. At moments like just before the end battle, a grand speech by the protagonist would have done wonders for immersion.

This is what killed the speech at the end of Origins by Alistair and Anora. It should have been the warden. He was the true leader here. And it is the reason the end games of the Mass Effect series and DA2 are good.

[wsandista]

Tommyspa wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

I would say no, because I don't really want to feel like I'm retrogaming and buying new games in 2012 for 60 bucks a pop. Besides the premise of VA having anything to do with plot control is a bit ridiculous.

So your PC in ME or DA2 has never said something you didn't explicitly consent to, you know like Auto-Dialogue?

You assume everyone needs to play under the illusion that they created a character created by other people who tell me everything I am going to say or do in the course of a video game written by someone else?

But I consent when I pick those lines, with Auto-Dialogue or paraphrases I do not consent.

It is still forced consent no matter it voiced or text. Do you stop playing because you do not like what choices your character has or do you get over it, such as you would during auto-dialogue? They are exactly the same to me.

But it is informed and explicit consent with a silent PC. The PC never does anything the player does not explicitly consent to with a silent PC. With a voiced PC using paraphrases or Auto-dialogue, the PC does many things the player does not consent to. That breaks the character for me.

[Tommyspa]

wsandista wrote...

But it is informed and explicit consent with a silent PC. The PC never does anything the player does not explicitly consent to with a silent PC. With a voiced PC using paraphrases or Auto-dialogue, the PC does many things the player does not consent to. That breaks the character for me.

The other half of that is the fact that you miss out on tone and context of the character when speaking to other characters that may or may not take the text line the way you spoke it in your head. Which happens often in Origins for me and "breaks the character." It also forces npcs to be more emotion neutral towards more lines as well to dumb down the amount of times the misunderstanding happens, unless it is obvious, like "I love you" even then I could say it sarcasticly in my mind and the LI will still take it as genuine. If you remove the lack of tone you give other characters the ability to react correctly to what is spoken. Which leads to a better experience if you choose to select a characters tone and not their words as you never get to choose the exact words to roleplay accurately in either case, consented or no.

[Cyne]

Lethys1 wrote...

Cyne wrote...

Probably not, it would feel like the series was regressing.

If you got well over 100 hours worth of gameplay, crafting both weapons and armor, many branching side missions, morality measurements, decent graphics, three or four different ways of solving every quest, permanent reputations based on actions, character creation having an impact on narrative, and many different endings for the price of giving up voice acting.  You see that as regression?  

Every gameplay aspect from a game from 1998, other than graphics and voice acting, is better than this trash of 2011.  I call that regression most of all.

I see regression when I choose to help the mages and still get attacked by mages, or help the Templars and still get attacked by the Templars.  I see regression when perfectly good combat systems are overhauled and lose any semblance of tactical planning, which is then further ruined by reduced effectiveness of tanks and continuous spawning.  And I see regression when thought is removed from dialog choices, and now I just choose based on the icons.

Regression comes in the form of weak, stereotypical companions fighting in a poorly established location which is visually ugly and offers no exploration.

DA2 already regressed beyond even early 1990s adventure games as far as plot goes.  And I mean the games where you have to type in instructions as opposed to clicking on options in a UI.

One would not necessarily lead to the other (no voiced PC = more choices). I was as disturbed as everyone else that DA2 was so linear, but to imply it was related to the inclusion of a voiced PC is conjecture, at best. Removing the voiced PC wouldn't necessarily bring back those choices. I think the devs had independently decided to go in a more linear direction, for whatever reason. Look at Witcher 2, voiced protagonist with plenty of important choices, so it can be done.

Modifié par Cyne, 10 mai 2012 - 05:22 .

[Cyne]

wsandista wrote...

Cyne wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Cyne wrote...

Probably not, it would feel like the series was regressing.

Yes because reusing the same areas over and over, dumbing down everything for call of duty morons, and an overly exaggerated art-style is such great progress.

DA2 has its flaws, but a voiced protagonist is not one of them IMO. The silent protagonist in DA:O felt out of place for a lot of reasons, not the least being that everyone else had a distinguishable voice and personality. At moments like just before the end battle, a grand speech by the protagonist would have done wonders for immersion.

So is watching a movie or TV show immersive for you?

Read what TommySpa said; the speech was already in that scene, it was already being used to immerse players into the story, yet because of a lack of voiced protagonist, they were forced to have an auxiliary character give it, instead of the Warden. Whether or not a speech is a good tool for immersing players is besides the point, it was chosen and yet couldn't be used effectively because of no voiced PC.

[wsandista]

Tommyspa wrote...

The other half of that is the fact that you miss out on tone and context of the character when speaking to other characters that may or may not take the text line the way you spoke it in your head. Which happens often in Origins for me and "breaks the character."

You can apply the tone and context to the PC. There is often several opportunities in DAO to clarify your intentions with additional dialogue. This was replaced by the Auto-Dialogue in DA2.

It also forces npcs to be more emotion neutral towards more lines as well to dumb down the amount of times the misunderstanding happens, unless it is obvious, like "I love you" even then I could say it sarcasticly in my mind and the LI will still take it as genuine.

Companions often responded similarly to aggressive or diplomatic responses in DA2, so there is always going to be emotion neutral responses. If you said it sarcastically, then play the character like you don't love the LI, cheat on them or whatever feels necessary, you can do something similar to Leliana in DAO.

If you remove the lack of tone you give other characters the ability to react correctly to what is spoken. Which leads to a better experience if you choose to select a characters tone and not their words as you never get to choose the exact words to roleplay accurately in either case, consented or no.

NPCs seldom react to tone unless it is extreme. NPCs react much more to choices you make than the tone that the PC uses.

[wsandista]

Cyne wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Cyne wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Cyne wrote...

Probably not, it would feel like the series was regressing.

Yes because reusing the same areas over and over, dumbing down everything for call of duty morons, and an overly exaggerated art-style is such great progress.

DA2 has its flaws, but a voiced protagonist is not one of them IMO. The silent protagonist in DA:O felt out of place for a lot of reasons, not the least being that everyone else had a distinguishable voice and personality. At moments like just before the end battle, a grand speech by the protagonist would have done wonders for immersion.

So is watching a movie or TV show immersive for you?

Read what TommySpa said; the speech was already in that scene, it was already being used to immerse players into the story, yet because of a lack of voiced protagonist, they were forced to have an auxiliary character give it, instead of the Warden. Whether or not a speech is a good tool for immersing players is besides the point, it was chosen and yet couldn't be used effectively because of no voiced PC.

That doesn't answer my question.

To use the speech example, It feels more natural to have the monarch give the speech to their troops than just some guy(or girl) who is still relatively unknown to the majority of the troops.

[seraphymon]

I would. I would even do it even if there wasnt aanything else changed about the game because i feel in this type of game a silent protag is just plain better. So when adding one cuts down resources or limits other things that could be added , the choice is simple. The voice seems more out of place as it isnt mine, and if i dont like the VA chosen well im SOL. In other games it works and or i dont mind it. Its not about regressing or feeling like im buying a 90s game in 2012, and even if i did feel that worth it doesnt matter, because if the experience is soo much greater, thats all it comes down to.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The problem isn't voice acting per se, it's the attempt to emulate film with cinematics.

More specifically, the notion that almost all interactions ought to be cinematic and hence, lengthy (to justify the cinematic). It leads to a lot of info dump and is often used as a crutch for storytelling as you condition the players to pay attention to the cinematics (moreso than say, the environment or gameplay).

Considering that making different sets of cinematics for branching plot outcomes is expensive, and any other ways of representing consequences for your choices are ignored, then it's easier on time, resources and writing to just forgo the breadth and (sometimes) depth of player choices.

That said, it can work, provided the developers actually want to do it. Alpha Protocol, and to a lesser extent, Witcher 2 (less choices, but one has a massive impact).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Absolutely. The narrative that matters is the arc of character development, and the voice robs us of most of that.

Maybe BioWare can find a way to give us that control back while still keeping the voice, but I'm not optimistic.

Their goal should be to hand us a blank slate that we can craft as we see fit.  Let's see how they do.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 mai 2012 - 08:26 .