343 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Filament wrote...

I took it as a rhetorical question designed to make my standards seem absurd. But you have your answer now, anyway. I hope.

I wanted to have a conversation. I was showing interest in your thoughts and opinions.

[AkiKishi]

FemaleMageFan wrote...
I guess we have different opinions then Crusty. I do not see this as a flaw but i see this as a plus on the developers side. I'm the type of guy who would trade less dialogue for more quality cinematics while they have interaction. People had a problem with this in mass effect 3 but i loved it so much. It was much more dynamic and fluid and if i had it my way this could be the way foward for next generation rpgs<****storm but shuuush my opinion>. More role playing games are incorperating voice acting whether we like it or not and adding this level of cinematics fits quite well with these type of games. I grow tired of playing a game with dialogue choices and my player just randomly stands about without showing any emotion or reaction to what was being said. I'm probably going to hear an argument like "but what about your roleplaying?" I play characters like my player is an actor in a scenario and im confined by the ways of the world that my character is in so this fits perfectly with me. But hey im just saying

I don't actually agree with your premise, but I do agree that the VA in ME3 was better because they had longer lines to act rather than just sound bites.

This is another valid point. Because scenes are required to have a number of outcomes, they are static by nature. Compare that to scenes which have a known theme and it's like watching puppets.

[fchopin]

I would trade anything for more character control.

[GodWood]

Of course.

[Massakkolia]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
*snip*

Point being, the silent PC has been a tried and true RPG mechanic because it offers as close to an open and full-control experience as technology in the long-foreseeable-future will allow.

If EA/Bioware wants to make Action games, I say go for it. They will probably be amazing, have great stories and really immersive worlds. If they want to make RPGs, they should stick to conventions that work the best with RPGs - conventions they not allow abided by, but helped innovate and create. Or, if they want to go with a full RPG with a totally set protagonist, then do that instead as well.

Making RPG/Action hybrids while at the same time trying to allow the player to make their own character is a show-stopper. You can't do both and give any option that doesn't sound trite while at the same time trying to avoid a set protagonist.

*snip*

Your whole post was a fantastic read and I do agree with many points. I do, however, appreciate that Bioware dares to challenge some of the most trite conventions of RPGs. There's nothing wrong with shaking things up, mixing genres or even creating new genres. The problem is that with Dragon Age, the devs don't seem to know what they want or at least how to implement it.

Mass Effect trilogy was a hit-or-miss laboratory of genre blending. It started like that and that's why fans were more accepting to gameplay changes. In terms of combat and inventory management they pretty much hit the sweet spot in ME3. In terms of dialogue system, the series deteriorated in the last game to almost always-on auto-dialogue.

While auto-dialogue is indeed used regularly in games like Uncharted or Assassin's Creed, it's a damn shame in my opinion. If a game is story and dialogue driven it should always have some sort of game mechanic behind the dialogue. Otherwise, it just copies film mechanics and that's a sad thing for game developers to do. I'm a bit of an idealist when it comes to game industry and I'd love to see developers make new things while maintaining the identity of an independent and creative medium.

DA is the Bioware series that started as a deep role-playing experience. That was it's strength. I wish that Bioware would focus on that strength and every time they want to implement something new they would stop to think: How can I make this feature support the role-playing experience? I don't mind if they implement elements of other genres or even other media if they do it creatively. For a game series like DA the immersive role-playing should always come first.

So to make some sense of this rambling...At the moment, I'd rather they did a silent PC simply because they haven't created a very succesful roleplayable voiced PC. But, I do think a voiced PC can be done. If and when Bioware chooses to do that, I hope they really focus on maintaining the choice and immersive role-playing at the heart of the game. Conventions aren't necessarily needed for that though sometimes they do help.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

I guess we have different opinions then Crusty. I do not see this as a flaw but i see this as a plus on the developers side. I'm the type of guy who would trade less dialogue for more quality cinematics while they have interaction. People had a problem with this in mass effect 3 but i loved it so much. It was much more dynamic and fluid and if i had it my way this could be the way foward for next generation rpgs<****storm but shuuush my opinion>. More role playing games are incorperating voice acting whether we like it or not and adding this level of cinematics fits quite well with these type of games. I grow tired of playing a game with dialogue choices and my player just randomly stands about without showing any emotion or reaction to what was being said. I'm probably going to hear an argument like "but what about your roleplaying?" I play characters like my player is an actor in a scenario and im confined by the ways of the world that my character is in so this fits perfectly with me. But hey im just saying

I THINK THE SOLUTION TO YOUR PROBLEM IS TO PLAY MORE JRPGS. NARRATIVE FLEXIBILITY IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WRPGS ARE (OR AT LEAST SHOULD BE WHEN THEY FEATURE NARRATIVES AT ALL) GOOD AT, AND I WOULD HATE TO SEE THAT TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM.

[Sutekh]

Renkiri wrote...

That seems to be the difference between pro-silent and pro-voiced: the creativity to imagine and implement a character and the story around him/her, instead of having everything handed over like candy to a child. Good RPGs require effort.

That is incredibly generalizing. You have absolutely no idea why some people prefer their PC to be voiced, nor do you have any idea whether or not they put effort and imagination in roleplaying. This claim of so-called superiority of the silent gamer over the voiced one needs to stop. 

I am perfectly able to inject motivations, emotions and purpose in a character whether they speak or not. I did that with all my Hawkes, as I did with my Wardens, my Draconis, my Dovahkiins, Geralt (who will never be mine) or my Heroes of Mel Senshir, only to name the most recent ones. The only reason why most of those characters are silent is that PC VA is a relatively new thing and still rare. With the exception of Mister G., I could give you personal background, story, thoughts and personality for all of them. For me, the fact they were VAed or not is very secondary and almost only cosmetic, even though it's an aspect which, when well done, happens to add a lot to the overall experience, especially in a game which is plot-driven, third person and cinematics heavy.

Ever since I've been playing cRPGs - or to be accurate ever since cRPGs have shown some focus on characterization - it's been very clear to me the PC is never truly a blank slate, but a collaborative creation between, the devs and me. When I play, I'm addressing and reacting to the devs' creation through a computer program which, by its binary nature, is a very restricted medium. The PC's physical aspect, their vocabulary, the basis for their background, all this is pre-conditioned by a number of constraints that go well beyond the rules and setting that exist in PnP. My "job", as a roleplayer, is to work with those constraints to give life to my PC; add my personal touch, my own headcanon and my little snippets of fanfiction. The program's job is to concretize my PC through visuals, dialogs and world's reactions.

In that regard, voice adds a lot, for me. By addressing another sense (hearing added to sight) it creates another dimension of communication and "reality", as virtual as it may be. It doesn't change anything to the amount of control I have on my PC, because vocabulary, speech mannerism, and writers' intent are already defined regardless of VA. The tone is actually already given, and no amount of denial and dodging the question by pretending the interlocutor misunderstood will convince me that it's not. I control my PC by choosing among a pre-existing, definite number of options, be them text only or spoken (and yes, auto-dialog throws a nasty wrench in that control mechanism, but auto-dialog and VA are two distinct topics).

The assumption that VA acts like a crutch for people lacking imagination is as unfounded as saying that graphism or sound do the same. If I were to go the extreme route, I could say that your imagination is poor because you "need" the visuals to be done for you - including your PC's appearance which is ultimately conditioned by the CC and the engine. It would be as valid as saying I "need" the voice to be done for me.

[areuexperienced]

Oh but no, I like voiceless better because I'm smarter than you and this invalidates your opinion.

[Annie_Dear]

I would pay extra if it meant I'd have a silent protagonist.

[andraip]

Annie_Dear wrote...

I would pay extra if it meant I'd have a silent protagonist.

And then the game would be worse then DA 2, and all the BSN would rage about saying that Bioware made the game that bad on purpose. No thanks. Mute your headphones (or equivalent) and see for yourself if it makes the game better.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES wrote...

FemaleMageFan wrote...

I guess we have different opinions then Crusty. I do not see this as a flaw but i see this as a plus on the developers side. I'm the type of guy who would trade less dialogue for more quality cinematics while they have interaction. People had a problem with this in mass effect 3 but i loved it so much. It was much more dynamic and fluid and if i had it my way this could be the way foward for next generation rpgs<****storm but shuuush my opinion>. More role playing games are incorperating voice acting whether we like it or not and adding this level of cinematics fits quite well with these type of games. I grow tired of playing a game with dialogue choices and my player just randomly stands about without showing any emotion or reaction to what was being said. I'm probably going to hear an argument like "but what about your roleplaying?" I play characters like my player is an actor in a scenario and im confined by the ways of the world that my character is in so this fits perfectly with me. But hey im just saying

I THINK THE SOLUTION TO YOUR PROBLEM IS TO PLAY MORE JRPGS. NARRATIVE FLEXIBILITY IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WRPGS ARE (OR AT LEAST SHOULD BE WHEN THEY FEATURE NARRATIVES AT ALL) GOOD AT, AND I WOULD HATE TO SEE THAT TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM.

I was thinking about this for a while. May you recommend some good ones for me? Non turn based please

JRPGS? THE TALES OF [SOMETHING] GAMES ARE PRETTY GOOD, AND AREN'T TURN-BASED.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Ria wrote...

Auto-dialogue is the bane of gaming, especially of role-playing games. If you enjoy watching a story go and see a movie. Games are for interacting, not watching. Resorting to auto-dialogue in RPGs is a sign of lazy and uninspired game development.

Thankfully, gaming has moved beyond the 1990s.  Auto-dialogue in cut scenes expresses the character a player has created during the game.  Cut scenes are where role play pays off.

Auto-dialogue = excellent. 

[AkiKishi]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

I was thinking about this for a while. May you recommend some good ones for me? Non turn based please

Tales of <take your pick there are lots> 
Star Ocean
Eternal Sonata
Xenoblade (Huge game Wii exclusive took me 160 hours to finish)
Last Story
Runefactory if you want something different.
Not your typical JRPG but great combat system Dragons Dogma (demo should be easy to download)
Final Fantasy XIII / XIII-2 (don't like the first one myself, love the second one).
Souls of Zill O'll
Nier (worth it for the price you can get it at now)
White Knight Chronicles - Your PC makes the Warden look animated, but if you just think of them as combat support and focus on the proper cast, it's a very good game.

Those are all the ones I can think of off the top of my head current generation and non TB/Handheld anyway.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's an obviously impossible standard.  The only way a cutscene could ever reflect a character's personality is if that personality was controlled by the makers of the cutscene.

That is direct attack on player agency.

Not true at all.  If my Hawke is always sarcastic, then I'd love to see the sarcastic lines in a cut scene.  It's very possible and very entertaining. 

Auto-dialogue = no player control.

If the player isn't in control, what is the point of having the player there at all?

Also not true.  If I've been selecting the goody-goody responses all game, then my choices are absolutely on display when a character  says something goody-goody in a cut scene.  Auto-dialogue driven by a profile of player character choices is better than the cut scene pausing so I can click the same thing I would have clicked anyways.

[FaeQueenCory]

Not that this horse isn't a fine paste...... if it's not a fine, sentient blood-mist that will kill us all....

But I want to say, again..... in the faint hope (all hope is delusional) that is might mean something....

YES. I would prefer a million times more plot control than voice acting.

Now, I wouldn't mind maintaining the same kind of freedom that was in Origins as opposed to DA2's... "freedom of choice"... WHILE maintaining a voice actor.

But if voiced PC is at the cost of race and origin selection.... and dialogue limitations (there will always be limitations, but Origin's had WAY more variability than DA2's dialogue.... but I blame the 10 year gestation as opposed to the 2 year one for that.)....

Dragon Age started as a classical, but modern take, "Western RPG"... while DA2 feels like a JRPG... Because it IS. Because it follows the design of JRPGs.
Watch this, and you'll know what I mean. They are FAR more succinct than I could ever be.

[wsandista]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's an obviously impossible standard.  The only way a cutscene could ever reflect a character's personality is if that personality was controlled by the makers of the cutscene.

That is direct attack on player agency.

Not true at all.  If my Hawke is always sarcastic, then I'd love to see the sarcastic lines in a cut scene.  It's very possible and very entertaining. 

But you don't select the option to be sarcastic, it happens without any input from the player.

Auto-dialogue = no player control.

If the player isn't in control, what is the point of having the player there at all?

Also not true.  If I've been selecting the goody-goody responses all game, then my choices are absolutely on display when a character  says something goody-goody in a cut scene.  Auto-dialogue driven by a profile of player character choices is better than the cut scene pausing so I can click the same thing I would have clicked anyways.

But you don't control Auto-Dialogue, it happens without player consent. That is not player control, it is the opposite.

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...

But you don't select the option to be sarcastic, it happens without any input from the player.

But you don't control Auto-Dialogue, it happens without player consent. That is not player control, it is the opposite.

It's pre selected by your previous responses. Now generally people are a bit more complex than being a dick 100% of the time or being a goody two shoes 100% of the time and it depends on the situation. Not the blanket approach that DA2 takes.

FaeQueenCory wrote...
Dragon Age started as a classical, but modern take, "Western RPG"... while DA2 feels like a JRPG... Because it IS. Because it follows the design of JRPGs.
Watch this, and you'll know what I mean. They are FAR more succinct than I could ever be.

While it borrows heavily from elements of JRPG design. It's not like any JRPG I've ever played (and I've played a lot).
It's what I'd imagine if Final Fantasty got drunk one night and got knocked up by Origins. Dragon Age2 would be the bastard offspring.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 11 mai 2012 - 02:38 .

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's an obviously impossible standard.  The only way a cutscene could ever reflect a character's personality is if that personality was controlled by the makers of the cutscene.

That is direct attack on player agency.

Not true at all.  If my Hawke is always sarcastic, then I'd love to see the sarcastic lines in a cut scene.  It's very possible and very entertaining. 

Auto-dialogue = no player control.

If the player isn't in control, what is the point of having the player there at all?

Also not true.  If I've been selecting the goody-goody responses all game, then my choices are absolutely on display when a character  says something goody-goody in a cut scene.  Auto-dialogue driven by a profile of player character choices is better than the cut scene pausing so I can click the same thing I would have clicked anyways.

THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THIS KIND OF AUTO-DIALOGUE IS A LACK OF NUANCE. DRAGON AGE 2 ESSENTIALLY LETS YOU SELECT FROM THREE PERSONALITIES, AND DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO, FOR INSTANCE, DECIDE YOUR CHARACTER IS WARM TO FAMILY AND BRUSQUE TO ALL OTHERS, EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE THAT IS CLEARLY A BAD IDEA.

[AkiKishi]

Begemotka wrote...

Except people`s character profiles are so immensely more complex than that,and the game pretending otherwise is character-breaking.That is what many people have issue with. Not everyone,I understand,but back to the point.

Being diplomatic,sarcastic or aggressive depends on the situation,the players and context.
I might be sarcastic in situation A with you,but might get aggressive in same situation with B,etc.People who are in general considered "sarcastic" are not always so,I find.Same with the other 2.
If the game is trying to derive your PCs character from your previous responses,tones should represent a broader spectrum.And it should not pigeonhole you as one immutable personality type,so when trying to approach a situation in a different manner you end up sounding like some poor fellow with Dissociative Identity Disorder (not schizophrenia,that is very different).And then I did not even mention the paraphrasing gone awry.
Just sayin`.
Different strokes,as always.

That is a problem when you try to mix things up as well. Because the actor has been given the tone as direction, they put a lot of emphasis on the delivery and it can end up sounding like different people. It's not a problem in Deus Ex where Adam can shift from extremes but is still very much Adam.

I'm not sure if they are trying to force you along a narrow path, but that's how it turns out. I was playing a "nice guy" but impatient Hawke with a very strong sense of justice and a bit of penchant for bandit slaying. But the character delivery was all over the place. It was more like I was playing 3 personalities and different ones were surfacing depending on the actions.

[Cutlasskiwi]

In Exile wrote...

If we give up all VA (PCs and NPCs), absolutely. Otherwise, no.

^^Yep. I do not want to go back to the Origin style where everyone spoke aloud except the warden.