343 réponses à ce sujet

[brushyourteeth]

Pedrak wrote...

As I wrote elsewhere, it's a cliché that each Dwarf has to sound like Brian Blessed and each Elf like a tenor.

Oh buddy, do you remember that elf you meet in the Alienage in DA:O near the entrance who you give the conscription letter from the Blackstone Irregulars to? Insanely deep voice. Every time I replay that part I think "holy testosterone."

And Fenris. Fenris has a really deep voice. So there's precedent there for deep elf voices.

[wsandista]

Sutekh wrote...

That's the nature of main quests. They can't be ignored. Not if you want to finish the game, that is.

This said, in DA2, some "side-quests" were in fact main quests, and the way they were implemented (i.e. made mandatory) was very clumsy. They didn't force motivation on you, they simply didn't give you any motivation at all except "because shut up". Again a plot problem (bad writing, if you will), not a character one.

That they were forced on you is both a character problem and a writing problem. Maybe my Hawke after collecting a certain amount of something just wanted to get on with a certain mission for a certain reason that was not up to the player.(Sorry if that is confusing, but we are in a no spoiler forum, I'm talking about ACT1 so I believe you know what I'm referring to.) the writers assume the PCs motivation for the player, which while that can work with a pre-gen, a player-generated PC needs to have motive come from the PC. ACT1 in particular failed at this for some, because it assumed Hawkes motive for going on a certain adventure.

That's... a very extreme stance. Are you a lawyer?* Only lawyers would need everything to be explicitly stated with no room for interpretation and would be suspicious enough to consider paraphrases "intentionally" forcing someone to lose control of the dialogue.

I'm not going to defend paraphrases themselves, because I absolutely don't care about them, but since you seem to like accuracy, let's be accurate. "Auto" in auto-dialogue means something that works by itself, on its own volition; in this case, without any input from the player. Paraphrases need to be picked, therefore, they're not "auto". They can be misleading, actually resulting in surprise-dialogue, and that's bad, but that's not auto-dialogue in any way.

Actually, I'm currently studying for an economics degree, although I did consider law as a profession once.

To me they did work by themselves, the player picked a general route, and the PC decided how to go about getting down that route. It reminded me of the commands you could give in NWN, you could command "heal me" for instance, but you could not chooses what they healed you with, same thing with "attack" or "open lock". So I believe they are Auto-Dialogue, since the player doesn't actually pick exactly what is said.

Besides, are you saying that all paraphrases - each and everyone of them - resulted in a dialogue that was completely different from their apparent general meaning?

No.
I'm saying that the PC never explicitly picked the dialogue, instead they picked a general direction.

As for "intentionally"... really? What would be the purpose?

The same reason why Hawke is partaking in the ACT1 main quest(not the glorified side quests, but the actual main quest), which is to make the PC more constant throughout different playthroughs.

Also, I don't get how it would be OK for even a preset protag to say things you didn't intend to say. What you describe - control taken from the player intentionally while pretending not to - is bad and dishonest in principle no matter the context.

With concerns to Auto-Dialogue, with a pre-set it is more acceptable, because every line available to them is written expressly for them and doesn't break character, while for a player-generated, there can be quite a few lines that don't mesh with the PC and can break the character.

Finally, my point is that VA can be done without loss of player control or "presetting" the protag. Wheel, paraphrases and auto-dialogue are localized side-effects that can be removed. Mass Effect, SWTOR and DA2 are irrelevant. Bioware have proven they're not married to One True Formula and not afraid to make deep changes (whether good or bad not being the point).

I believe it can as well, however it still hasn't happened yet. Bioware has to prove they aren't married to the formula by not doing it for their next RPG(somehow I don't think Command & Conquer will be one). An option to turn off the VA would be welcome as well, for those who did not like how the PC VA sounds. This is especially true if the PC is Orlesian, Judging from how most Orlesians are portrayed so far, 15 minutes with a campy French caricature would be unbearable. Remeber Duke Prosper?

* No offense intended. No offense intended either by my implying "lawyer" can be offensive. The latter covers everyone who could be a lawyer, or be related to one, even remotely. Or simply like lawyers. Or any legal profession whatsoever. Or legal shows. Actually, any medium containing anything even vaguely pertaining to the written law. 

None taken.

Modifié par wsandista, 22 mai 2012 - 02:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sutekh wrote...

Hawke's first name is refered to in codices

Excellent pluralisation.  Well done.  Amost no one gets that right.

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

I can only speak for myself, but every one of my Hawkes (I've played five so far, each following from a Warden) felt different from the rest.  Each had his or her own motivations, goals, opinions, etc.  I will say there are certain instances where the game assumes motivation (I believe Sylvius has a thread on it) and I'm not really okay with that. 

Indeed I do.

Sutekh wrote...

That's the nature of main quests. They can't be ignored. Not if you want to finish the game, that is.

I'm going to take issue with this.

You've finished the game when you've done all you can with your character.  I finished DA2 shortly after beginning Act III.

You have to complete all of the main quests in order to complete the authored narrative, but that is itself an optional component of the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sutekh wrote...

As for motivations during the game itself, how many different Hawkes have you played? Not a rhetorical question, btw. I'd really like to know. Have you tried different classes, different genders, different romances? Have you tried siding with the *spoilers* in Act II? Against them? Betray *spoiler* in Act II finale? Fighting for her? Executing *spoiler* in Act III? Going all the way for the Templars to the point of executing *spoiler* while in love with him?  Or being so smitten with the guy that you actually forgive him for what he's done? Do you honestly think the motivations would be the same for all those situations?

The game is such that you cannot design a character in advance, though, with that sort of nuanced personality and have it function throughout the game.

Yes, you could start the game with a blank slate and let the game tell you what sort of person he his as he does those things you describe, but that's just a Choose Your Own Adventure story.  You're deciding what story you want to be told; you're not playing a character to see what he does.

I think the character design should come first, and his actions should follow from that.  DA2, though, only allows you to choose broad actions (fine control is denied you by the paraphrase system) and then discover what sort of character you are playing.

DA2 does it backward.

Customization doesn't necessarily equal player-generation. Motives and back-story do. With the Warden or Bhaalspawn, there is enough wiggle-room to be able to embellish or creative a narrative background for the PC. Hawke does not have that, Hawke has a past that is much more defined than any of the Wardens or Bhaalspawn.

No, but it very much starts there. It's the moment when the protag is born, so to speak, when you, as a player, mark your territory. And Hawke's past isn't more defined than any of the Wardens' at the moment you start the game.

His background, sure, but his motives are rigidly defined by the game.  Hawke isn't permitted to hold a wide range of opinions in specific combinations.  You've described Hawkes you found interesting, but what of one who feels the mages are unduly opporessed, bears no ill will toward slavers generally, but supports Fenris's vendetta against those who have wronged him?  That Hawke isn't allowed to exist within the game.  That's the problem.  DA2 assigns motives, and changes future dialogue options to fit those motives, even if those motives are incorrect (and worse, unknown to the player).

DA2 absolutely did not allow the player to craft a detailed personality for Hawke, as it constantly had Hawke behave in ways that violated any personality not foreseen by the writers.

[Sutekh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You've finished the game when you've done all you can with your character.  I finished DA2 shortly after beginning Act III.

You have to complete all of the main quests in order to complete the authored narrative, but that is itself an optional component of the game.

I'm a completionist, so, for me, a game is finished once it has nothing left that I haven't done or seen. For others, the game is finished once they've reached the end screen, assuming there is one.

What you describe is more akin to being done with the game. In practice, the result is the same: you don't play the game anymore (or a specific instance of the game in case of multi-playthroughs). In absolute, the game isn't finished (some games don't have an end, though. For them, the two notions can mean the same).

Yes, you could start the game with a blank slate and let the game tell you what sort of person he his as he does those things you describe, but that's just a Choose Your Own Adventure story.  You're deciding what story you want to be told; you're not playing a character to see what he does.

Let's say that in DA2 case, I decide what story I want to be told, but the motivations and emotions are very much mine, at some points. At others, the disconnect is very strong and feels like Hawke is under mind control. This game is hit and miss on many aspects.

I cannot start with a blank slate because too many things have already been decided in my stead (and that's unfortunate), but I have still enough room to inject things that come from me, and not always passively follow and "control" the plot by choices and see where it leads Hawke, which is what I do with preset characters.

I think the character design should come first, and his actions should follow from that.  DA2, though, only allows you to choose broad actions (fine control is denied you by the paraphrase system) and then discover what sort of character you are playing.

DA2 does it backward.

I'd say it very much depends on what type of game / subgenre you're expecting to play, but I generally agree with you. DA2 does it backward if you want and expect full character control. If said control being rarely granted is what was intended - for whatever reasons - then it doesn't do it backward, it does what it was designed to do. I don't think it's actually the case, though. I think it tries to hit a middle ground but fails on the finish line due to rushed writing.

His background, sure, but his motives are rigidly defined by the game.  Hawke isn't permitted to hold a wide range of opinions in specific combinations.  You've described Hawkes you found interesting, but what of one who feels the mages are unduly opporessed, bears no ill will toward slavers generally, but supports Fenris's vendetta against those who have wronged him?  That Hawke isn't allowed to exist within the game.  That's the problem.  DA2 assigns motives, and changes future dialogue options to fit those motives, even if those motives are incorrect (and worse, unknown to the player).

DA2 absolutely did not allow the player to craft a detailed personality for Hawke, as it constantly had Hawke behave in ways that violated any personality not foreseen by the writers.

Again, I agree. My point isn't that Hawke is a blank slate, nor that you're allowed to nuance him the exact way you want (not even approximately, actually), but that there is still enough room for personal flavor not to label him a preset character.

This said, I've yet to play a game that truly does. Not even the very undefined and free Nerevarine wasn't sometimes forced into actions or dialog options that clashed with the personality and motivations I envisioned. I know that you hate this argument, but there's still technical limitations due to the binary medium. The only way I could imagine a narrative following the PC motivations exactly, would be a very undefined, protean one. It's not impossible; I'm just not sure it would be enjoyable, nor that it would be in the spirit of the very plot-driven DA franchise.

How do you think this could be done, in practice?

Modifié par Sutekh, 22 mai 2012 - 08:45 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sutekh wrote...

I'm a completionist, so, for me, a game is finished once it has nothing left that I haven't done or seen. For others, the game is finished once they've reached the end screen, assuming there is one.

What you describe is more akin to being done with the game. In practice, the result is the same: you don't play the game anymore (or a specific instance of the game in case of multi-playthroughs). In absolute, the game isn't finished (some games don't have an end, though. For them, the two notions can mean the same).

My point is that the idea of the main quests being mandatory isn't necessarily true.  The main quests are only mandatory if the player has decided to complete the main quest.

This isn't true for all players.

Let's say that in DA2 case, I decide what story I want to be told, but the motivations and emotions are very much mine, at some points. At others, the disconnect is very strong and feels like Hawke is under mind control. This game is hit and miss on many aspects.

Which, I think, makes it a miss.  If Hawke behaves as if under mind control, then DA2 has broken your character.  There's no way for the motives you determine (which I'll agree DA2 does sometimes let you do) to form part of a coherent whole if aspects of that whole are determined without any input from you.

The player then can only then ignore the mond control section and accept that parts of the game may no longer make sense.  That's not an acceptable solution.

I cannot start with a blank slate because too many things have already been decided in my stead (and that's unfortunate), but I have still enough room to inject things that come from me, and not always passively follow and "control" the plot by choices and see where it leads Hawke, which is what I do with preset characters.

I don't see how injecting your own content can be any fun at all when you know the game will, at some point, ruin it.

I'd say it very much depends on what type of game / subgenre you're expecting to play, but I generally agree with you. DA2 does it backward if you want and expect full character control.

That's exactly what I want.  I want to craft a character and set him loose to see what he does.

 If said control being rarely granted is what was intended - for whatever reasons - then it doesn't do it backward, it does what it was designed to do.

Yes, but it also then fails to allow roleplaying.  If you can't know why your character would do something, then you cannot know what it is he would do.

I don't think it's actually the case, though. I think it tries to hit a middle ground but fails on the finish line due to rushed writing.

I'll agree that BioWare didn't intend DA2 to work as badly as it did, but I can't fault the writing.  I fault a lot of the quest design, and I fault the wrong-headed paraphrase system.

But I also have no idea what they were actually going for.  Some of their design decisions appear to have no purpose beyond limiting player agency.

Again, I agree. My point isn't that Hawke is a blank slate, nor that you're allowed to nuance him the exact way you want (not even approximately, actually), but that there is still enough room for personal flavor not to label him a preset character.

The only way for Hawke to maintain any semblance of coherence is for the player to accept BioWare's design in its entirety.

And that leaves nothing for the player to do.

This said, I've yet to play a game that truly does. Not even the very undefined and free Nerevarine wasn't sometimes forced into actions or dialog options that clashed with the personality and motivations I envisioned.

I've played many games that allowed tremendous freedom.  I can't claim limitless freedom, necessarily, but the number of times a genuinely good game should force the PC down any path the player didn't want should number fewer than 10, and not number in the thousands as DA2 does.

It's possible that my understanding of language and interaction allows me to see mor freedom than other people see.  I don't think most states of mind require specific assopciated behaviour, so I'm far less likely to see a list of dialogue options and complain that the thing I want to do isn't listed.  In any situation, there are innumerable things I could do that would be consistent with my character, and chances are at least one of them is available in that list of options.

But DA2 didn't even let me see the options, so I couldn't even choose the one that wouldn't break my character.

I know that you hate this argument, but there's still technical limitations due to the binary medium. The only way I could imagine a narrative following the PC motivations exactly, would be a very undefined, protean one. It's not impossible; I'm just not sure it would be enjoyable, nor that it would be in the spirit of the very plot-driven DA franchise.

How do you think this could be done, in practice?

I think roleplaying games produce strong emergent narratives, and those narratives always hew close to the PC's motivations.  The authored narrative, or 'story' in BioWare's parlance, is merely backdrop.

[brushyourteeth]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

How do you think this could be done, in practice?

I think roleplaying games produce strong emergent narratives, and those narratives always hew close to the PC's motivations.  The authored narrative, or 'story' in BioWare's parlance, is merely backdrop.

With respect, I'd really be interested in your answer to that question too, Sylvius. I mean, the rest of us don't know your gaming background or which games you feel succeeded in that respect for one thing, or why. How would you fix DA's narrative in order to give the player more plot control?

[Sylvius the Mad]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

How do you think this could be done, in practice?

I think roleplaying games produce strong emergent narratives, and those narratives always hew close to the PC's motivations.  The authored narrative, or 'story' in BioWare's parlance, is merely backdrop.

With respect, I'd really be interested in your answer to that question too, Sylvius. I mean, the rest of us don't know your gaming background or which games you feel succeeded in that respect for one thing, or why. How would you fix DA's narrative in order to give the player more plot control?

I think it has been done in many of BioWare's games.  I'm not claiming to reinvent the genre, here - just to get it pointed back in the right direction.

The game needs to not assume the PC's motive for doing things.  The quests, instead of being episodes of specific character growth as determined by the writers, should instead be nothing more than "things the PC can do".  Why the PC does them is what informs character and plot development, and why the PC does them is only known to the player.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 mai 2012 - 10:30 .

[brushyourteeth]

I still don't really understand, but I hope you know I'm not meaning to make it a point of argument - I really am just trying to see where you're coming from. I'm still curious, but not wanting to badger you with questions I think I'll just leave it here.

[Vormaerin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I think it has been done in many of BioWare's games.

I'd like to see you list some examples, because I don't see it.  Not in the sense of having a strong, emergent narrative.

Planescape lets you develop most of your character, but you don't have any choice about being motivated to uncover your past.  Well, other than saying "screw it" and tossing the game in bin.

I can imagine various motivations for my warden, but they all bounce off the NPCs complete indifference to my character, not to mention the limitations of the dialogue.

[Burnouts3s3]

Yes.

I would greatly trade it in for quest freedom. Voices are overrated as compared to decision making.

[MissOuJ]

No. Nonononononono!

I prefer the DAII style - seeing Hawke actually react and hearing the change in his voice when the situation annoyed/amused/enraged him was awesome. I hated it when my Warden just stood ramrod straight (or if she was feeling really expressive, arms crossed) during conversations whether the NPC:s/Companions were talking about selling elves to slavery, killing all the mages (my first Warden was an Amell) or talking to Alistair about lampposts. Always the same, semi-bored pose and expression. Hawke actually made the conversations interesting.

I'm doing a DA:O playthrough ATM and end up actually skipping conversations, which makes me feel a bit guilty to see all that NPC acting talent go to waste, but it's just boring listen to a one-sided conversation, even when I know what my Warden said/answered. Kills my immersion more often than not.

[AkiKishi]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I still don't really understand, but I hope you know I'm not meaning to make it a point of argument - I really am just trying to see where you're coming from. I'm still curious, but not wanting to badger you with questions I think I'll just leave it here.

It's more of a technology thing. It's been done before because the avatars were less detailed and expressive. It was a side effect of that rather than being intentional. Which is likely why Bioware has dropped it in favour of expressive cinematic presentation. SquareEnix did much the same thing with final Fantasy very early on,then once voicing became the norm naming the pre-generated character was dropped.

Bottom line is, a non expressive character in a cinematic game is out of place.

[Sylvius the Mad]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I still don't really understand, but I hope you know I'm not meaning to make it a point of argument - I really am just trying to see where you're coming from. I'm still curious, but not wanting to badger you with questions I think I'll just leave it here.

Hopefully you'll still read along as I offer examples.

Vormaerin wrote...

I'd like to see you list some examples, because I don't see it.  Not in the sense of having a strong, emergent narrative.

Okay, let's try some examples.

In Baldur's Gate, meaningful control of the PC is handed to the player just outside Candlekeep following Gorion's death in an ambush.  What happens next?  The PC was attacked twice inside Candlekeep.  How did he interpret those events?  Has he put them out of his mind as an unpleasant experience to be forgotten, or does he think them part of some orchestrated attempt to kill him.  To believe the latter, most people would need some idea of why it would be true, and the PC doesn't have that.  Also, in the ambush that killed Gorion, the armoured stranger (Sarevok) demanded only that the PC be handed over, and did not attempt to kill him.  Does the PC think Sarveok was trying to kill him?  Why?  Perhaps he thinks Sarevok was trying to help rescue him.  Perhaps he's just confused and panicked by the circumstances.  So, given the PC's current mental state (whatever it might be), what does he do next?  Gorion told him to go the Friendly Arm Inn.  Does the PC still trust Gorion?  Either his motives or his competence?

Nowhere does the game assume the answer to any of these questions.  The PC never offers an opinion without the PC explicitly instructing him to do so, and the game doesn't change future dialogue options based on those opinions, thus leaving open the possibility that the PC didn't believe those either (but instead spoke as if he did for some other reason).

In KotOR, there's an obvious railroad on Taris, but the game never assumes the PC's motives for following it.  At the reveal of the big plot twist, how does the PC feel about what that?  Does he believe it?  He's been told the Jedi can create false memories - maybe this is another one.  If he pursues the light side ending, does he do that because he serves the light and it's the right thing to do, or becausehe's angry about the revelation and wants to destroy anything associated with it (including the Star Forge and Malek)?  If he pursues the dark side ending, does he do it because he's reclaiming his rightful place as Sith Lord, or because he's angry at the Jedi for implanting false memories and lying to him?  Or perhaps he now sees the Jedi as the more insiduous threat to the freedom of people within the galaxy, and chooses to defeat them out of a sense of righteous purpose.   You can do the Dark Side ending in KotOR for Light Side reasons.

Planescape lets you develop most of your character, but you don't have any choice about being motivated to uncover your past.  Well, other than saying "screw it" and tossing the game in bin.

Here you're making the same mistake everyone else does.  It's not about being able to choose what the PC does.  It's about being able to choose why the PC does it.

The why is the part of the narrative we used to control.

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's more of a technology thing. It's been done before because the avatars were less detailed and expressive. It was a side effect of that rather than being intentional. Which is likely why Bioware has dropped it in favour of expressive cinematic presentation. SquareEnix did much the same thing with final Fantasy very early on,then once voicing became the norm naming the pre-generated character was dropped.

It doesn't matter whether the feature was intentional.  The fact remains that the feature was there, and now it's gone.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 25 mai 2012 - 06:50 .

[robertthebard]

No, and I've already been through why not in the other topics about it.

[MerinTB]

Yes. I've become firmly entrenched over the last few years that games shouldn't try to be movies, and also probably should avoid being novels while they are at it.

Unless (big unless) you are playing the "visual novel" style of game, where you just want to click through and control the pacing of a story. That's a legitimate game / style of gaming, IMO.

But I assume the discussion here is regarding cRPGs - to which I say HELL YES, get rid of the voiced protagonist... and I'd be happy to see all voices, save maybe some static cut-scenes or some prologue and epilogue moments, gone.

Ron Perlman at the start of Fallout 1 & 2 was all I needed.

[Nadia]

No. Voice acting was incredible in DA2 and it made my protagonist more... alive and being part of the game, don't know how else can I explain that:)

[goofyomnivore]

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

Yes

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

No, I'd want more than what DA:O offered. If that is all the difference it makes might as well keep the VA.

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

Yes

Modifié par strive, 26 mai 2012 - 12:21 .

[Uccio]

I would.

[jbrand2002uk]

No because there is no real "control"in DAO or any video game so its a mute point oh and

Oi MerinTB ! Bring back Mr Garribaldi DAMMIT ! I miss him so much I'll have to watch my ultimate Babylon 5 boxset again( All 52 DVDS)

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

No because there is no real "control"in DAO or any video game so its a mute point

That you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not there.

And the word you wanted was moot, not mute.

[Bizantura]

Yes please, get rid of protagonist voice acting. If I want a movie I will pop one in my dvd player.

[Nilbog79]

To answer the OP, if silent protagonist means more plot control and dialogue choices, then yes, get rid of voiced PC.

[Cultist]

I can't even imagine an anwser other than "YES"!

[CuriousArtemis]

Definitely not; I enjoyed DA2 way more than DA:O mostly because of the voice acting I would not purchase a Silent Protagonist DA3.