343 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Lethys1 wrote...

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

Sure.

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

Sure.

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

That's fine.

BioWare will never produce a game like Fallout though. Whether with Silent or Voice PC.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 10 mai 2012 - 05:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Of course. Given, however that I think voice-acting is largely worthless (the only time I've really liked it is the PC voices in Wizardry 8), I'd do away with it without a second thought.

Why won't someone make a new game like Wizardry 8?  Wizardry 8 was brilliant.

[Bizantura]

I trade voice acting in in a heartbeat for more RPG ala DA:O. I couldn't care less about the voice acting of protagonist.

Modifié par Bizantura, 10 mai 2012 - 05:35 .

[ohnotherancor]

Lethys1 wrote...

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

Definitely.

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

Of course.

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

Mm...probably not. I love having voiced companions. I feel like the characters wouldn't be as memorable without voices and characters are what BioWare tends to do best.


I vastly prefer silent protagonists to voiced, but it sounds like BioWare isn't really interested in having silent protagonists anymore.

[Atakuma]

Lethys1 wrote...

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

Nope, it wouldn't be worth it.

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

Absolutely not, Origins' level of choice was superficial at best.

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

No.

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.

DA2  is not proof that this can't be done, it's just proof that it can't be done on a crap budget and tiny development cycle. Also people need to stop taking speculation about SWTOR as fact, it's just a rumor backed up by hearsay.

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.

Nonsense.

[Deviija]

Lethys1 wrote...


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?

Yes, yes, and a big yes, to all the above.   I'd be quite happy with how Baldur's Gate II had it -- where characters would speak the first line or two of important conversations, but then the rest of the game is text.  

[Iosev]

One of the main goals that I applaud Bioware for in the past few years is their effort in trying to have a player's experience in one game carry over to the next game. I think that this ongoing, personal continuity for each franchise is valiant, but at the same time, it's easy to see how difficult it is to implement in practice, particularly when it comes to the plot.

Specifically, trying to create games that affect their sequels in turn means that certain parts of the plot have to be set in stone. In addition, the more variable parts of a story often do not play an important role in the next game, largely because of the variance between each player's experience.

I think that this is more of a reason why the stories in Dragon Age and Mass Effect offer less plot control than a game like Fallout. The Fallout games, for example, are more standalone in nature. Ultimately, I would rather Bioware continue to refine their attempt at creating personal, ongoing continuities, rather than simply going the standalone story route.

As for voice acting, at least since KoToR, Bioware games have placed a tremendous amount of emphasis on dialogue (particularly in building and maintaining relationships with companions), and at least for me, seeing and hearing the protagonist interact with his or her companions has become an important aspect of dialogue (it helps to create a sense of back-and-forth interaction).

Interestingly, I'm currently replaying DA:O again, and I personally see a lot of "illusion" when it comes to dialogue options.  For example, while the player is given several ways to respond in certain conversations, many times the NPC will respond or react the same way, regardless of your dialogue choice (which becomes increasingly more apparent the more times I've played the game).  I would rather have fewer dialogue options that resulted in dramatic differences in the way a NPC reacted, than more dialogue options that simply elicited the same responses.

Modifié par arcelonious, 10 mai 2012 - 08:01 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Begemotka wrote...

I have to say,DAO still made for a more immersive gameplay experience for me.

Me too.

I did not know it was impossible to turn off only the PC`s voice.

It's impossible because of the way they encode the audio files.

I've asked them to change that.

[Loc'n'lol]

I really don't want to see voice acting gone (and we already know it's not happening anyway). But yes, I suppose it would be a good tradeoff, if it's pulled off well (not like in DAO).

[DreamerM]

I, personally, projected more of my own self into my Warden then my hawke, not because of voice-acting, but because I felt like I was actually CHOOSING what to say. Hawke had a bad habit of thinking I meant to say NOT the dialog choice I'd selected, but something kind of similar. That may be OK for Shephard, who's

But really, all I want is plot control back. I want the choices I make to matter. ME3 devoted large chunks of gametime to assembling war assetts that in the end, make no difference at all because you can't NOT choose to accept your inevitable defeat and take one of Dave the Star Child's "how do you want to destroy the universe?" options.

DA2 made Hawke out to be more important then he/she was. Really Hawke didn't need to be the champion at all, he/she just had to BE there when Anders went berzerk and killed all those innocent people. Which side Hawke was on didn't, ultimately, matter. The result is the same.

Remember in DA:0, when you got to choose two monarchs, decide the fate of a young Abomination, resolve templar/mage conflicts and decide who ends up martyred, villainized or dead? Heck, who you romanced even had consequences and affected your companions. Want to be a king's mistress? Want to marry a queen? Want to have a child by a mysterious witch? All of the above could happen. Just make your choices.

In short, I don't think the problem is the voice-acting itself. I just want my choices back.

Modifié par DreamerM, 10 mai 2012 - 08:46 .

[wsandista]

DreamerM wrote...

I, personally, projected more of my own self into my Warden then my hawke, not because of voice-acting, but because I felt like I was actually CHOOSING what to say. Hawke had a bad habit of thinking I meant to say NOT the dialog choice I'd selected, but something kind of similar. That may be OK for Shephard, who's

But really, all I want is plot control back. I want the choices I make to matter. ME3 devoted large chunks of gametime to assembling war assetts that in the end, make no difference at all because you can't NOT choose to accept your inevitable defeat and take one of Dave Star Child's "how do you want to destroy the universe?" options.

DA2 made Hawke out to be more important then he/she was. Really Hawke didn't need to be the champion at all, he/she just had to BE there when Anders went berzerk and killed all those innocent people. Which side Hawke was on didn't, ultimately, matter. The result is the same.

Remember in DA:0, when you got to choose two monarchs, decide the fate of a young Abomination, resolve templar/mage conflicts and decide who ends up martyred, villainized or dead? Heck, who you romanced even had consequences and affected your companions. Those were great days...

You forgot to mention that you could end a curse that has been around for centuries as the Warden, btw.

I agree with everything though.

Modifié par wsandista, 10 mai 2012 - 08:47 .

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...ptionw

Vaeliorin wrote...
Of course. Given, however that I think voice-acting is largely worthless (the only time I've really liked it is the PC voices in Wizardry 8), I'd do away with it without a second thought.

Why won't someone make a new game like Wizardry 8?  Wizardry 8 was brilliant.

I imagine because Sir-Tech went out of business shortly after it was released.

On topic...one of the things I really miss from the days of text is the descriptions of areas. With the lack of a text box, we no longer get the evocative descriptions of areas that contained so much more information than all the pretty graphics we have now. I want to know what the marketplace in Denerim smells like, how damp the Darkspawn tunnels are, etc. The best of the old games did this (even NWN2:MOTB tried to at the beginning, with the text blurbs during area transitions) and it's something that I really miss.

[Adanu]

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?

People seem to be under this idea that silent means more choice... it has never been like that and never will. YOu are railroaded along a plot no matter what you say. You don't get to decide a lot of things about what you do, and most of the 'origins' dialogue *was* autodialogue... it was just disguised.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Adanu wrote...

People seem to be under this idea that silent means more choice... it has never been like that and never will.

You're mistaking choice for freedom.

It's the paraphrase that removes choice.

It is the voice that removes freedom.

YOu are railroaded along a plot no matter what you say.

This has nothing at all to do with how much choice or freedom DAO's dialogue sysstem granted.
 
That the plot only follows one road is irrelevant.  What matters is who is doing the driving.

You don't get to decide a lot of things about what you do

Wrong.  You get to decide most of the things you do.  That you cannot choose some other imaginary alternative doesn't mean that you're unable to choose the available alternative.

and most of the 'origins' dialogue *was* autodialogue... it was just disguised.

There was no auto-dialogue in Origins at all.  Every single line was something the player explicitly selected.

I would argue that all dialogue in DA2 is auto-dialogue, and the player doesn't get to select any of it.

[twincast]

@OP:
Yes!!!

'Nuff said.

[TMZuk]

Any day! VA is the worst thing that has happened to cRPGs. It takes away control, choices and variation. That being said, Obsidian proved with Fallout: new Vegas that it is possible to make a fully voiced game that still have many options and different outcomes.

[Massakkolia]

DreamerM wrote...

I, personally, projected more of my own self into my Warden then my hawke, not because of voice-acting, but because I felt like I was actually CHOOSING what to say. Hawke had a bad habit of thinking I meant to say NOT the dialog choice I'd selected, but something kind of similar. 

Pretty much this. I support silent protagonist but only because Bioware still hasn't figured out a way to maintain the feeling of choice while having a voiced PC. 

Only BG2 and DAO have made me feel truly engaged in the game. For immersion I need 1) freedom to create my own character, 2) control over my choices, 3) fascinating game universe and 4) engaging companions who interact with me. A good plot is a plus too. Many games fulfil some of those requirements but very few tick all the boxes for me.

I think voice acting could be implemented in a way that would not be detrimental to the player agency. The first step would be destroying misleading and far too short paraphrases. The second step would involve more choices. Expensive but worth it.

I'm afraid we're fighting a losing battle here in the silent PC camp. Perhaps we should instead concentrate on making the voiced PC as good as possible.

[Blastback]

In a heartbeat. 

Sadly, I don't see this happening.  Bioware has made it clear that the Voiced PC is here to stay.  What we can do is try to push for implementation of the PCVO that are more accesible to those of us who like the advantages of the Silent PC.

[Adanu]

Sylvius, I disagree on just about everything you said. You had autodialogue in Origins, you just had the illusion of picking slightly different variants that amounted to the same thing in most cases.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius, I disagree on just about everything you said. You had autodialogue in Origins, you just had the illusion of picking slightly different variants that amounted to the same thing in most cases.

Auto-dialogue is your character speaking without your input.

Origins always gave the player input.  Every time.  There is not one moment anywhere in Origins where the Warden says anything without the player having told him to say exactly that thing.

How different the available options were is immaterial.  The player got to choose among them based on their content, and the Warden never deviated from that instruction.  That is the complete and total absence of auto-dialogue.

Where do you think there was auto-dialogue in Origin?  Where did the Warden say anything without being explicitly directed to do so?

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

CrustyBot wrote...

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).

BASICALLY THIS. VOICE ACTING IS JUST ONE OF MANY ELEMENTS IN MODERN RPGS THAT SCALE POORLY WITH CONTENT.

[Iosev]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Origins always gave the player input.  Every time.  There is not one moment anywhere in Origins where the Warden says anything without the player having told him to say exactly that thing.

How different the available options were is immaterial.  The player got to choose among them based on their content, and the Warden never deviated from that instruction.  That is the complete and total absence of auto-dialogue.

Where do you think there was auto-dialogue in Origin?  Where did the Warden say anything without being explicitly directed to do so?

I don't think that this is true.  The primary example is the pre-selected voice, ambient speech, such as when the suave voice says, "Now all we need are a few pretties and a bit of music," or when you try to open something, cast a spell, and so on.

Modifié par arcelonious, 10 mai 2012 - 10:59 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Where do you think there was auto-dialogue in Origin?  Where did the Warden say anything without being explicitly directed to do so?

The Warden never spoke.

Which is part of why DAO was so much less of an experience than DA2.  The dialogue choices in a game should help define the character's personality.  That personality should be reflected in cutscenes to make them much more entertaining.  Auto-dialogue is excellent because it allows for a character to express themselves in what would otherwise be a stilted "it's my momen of triump... but I'll just wave and smile" cutscene.

Auto-dialogue = excellent.  Lack of auto-dialogue = boring.

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 10 mai 2012 - 11:07 .