343 réponses à ce sujet

[Pedrak]

It's a lost cause, people. One of the few things devs have been clear about the future of the series is the voiced PC.

Pity, really.

Good article about the impact of full voice acting here:

http://www.escapistm...Voice-vs-Choice

Modifié par Pedrak, 15 mai 2012 - 02:31 .

[AkiKishi]

Pedrak wrote...

It's a lost cause, people. One of the few things devs have been clear about the future of the series is the voiced PC.

Pity, really.

Good article about the impact of full voice acting here:

http://www.escapistm...Voice-vs-Choice

Funny reading that ,because it reads just like act 2 of the Witcher2.

[jbrand2002uk]

No when the so called control many claim DAO and its ilk offered does not exist in order to control the story you the gamer would have to write it regardless of what game you play you are interacting with a story and the key USP of a story is that it has a defined start a middle and an end and no being able to pick how you get to that end via options does not equal control.

While a Silent PC can work the problem is that to get invested in a story requires immersion and when every character except the PC can be heard speaking yet the PC stands mute thats an instant immersion breaker more so when you can see your PC standing there mouth closed doing nothing.The only way round this is for the entire game to be played in first person view.

And finally OP asking for something is all fair and well but try to ask for something that actually exists and dont was time asking for something thats so unlikely you'd stand a better chance of winning the lottery jackpot every draw for a year straight

[Chaoz1994]

Skyrim has an unvoiced protagonist, and I dare you to find one person who says that it's not immersive. We are getting a voiced PC though (that's BioWare's way now, like it or not), which I'm ambivalent about. So long as the rest of the game is as amazing as DA:O I don't mind either way. And so long as they bring back the tactical combat.

Edit: If fully voiced means we no longer get race selection I'm gonna be annoyed.

Modifié par Chaoz1994, 16 mai 2012 - 06:06 .

[AndrahilAdrian]

yes

[seraphymon]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

No when the so called control many claim DAO and its ilk offered does not exist in order to control the story you the gamer would have to write it regardless of what game you play you are interacting with a story and the key USP of a story is that it has a defined start a middle and an end and no being able to pick how you get to that end via options does not equal control.

While a Silent PC can work the problem is that to get invested in a story requires immersion and when every character except the PC can be heard speaking yet the PC stands mute thats an instant immersion breaker more so when you can see your PC standing there mouth closed doing nothing.The only way round this is for the entire game to be played in first person view.

And finally OP asking for something is all fair and well but try to ask for something that actually exists and dont was time asking for something thats so unlikely you'd stand a better chance of winning the lottery jackpot every draw for a year straight

Of course there is ome railroading, very seldom to games offer a completely different experience based on a simple choice. Wticher 2 and a part of legacy dlc had this. However DDA2 took this to a whole new lvl,based on the way the entire game was set it, especially when all it is, is an already  a story told by Varric.

Requiring immersion is the point of many RPGS i feel in addition to playing the game. Just like a game should require a person actually playing it,instead of watching like its more of a movie instead of a game. Just like reading a book requires reading, instead of the lines, being beamed straight into your brain. The fact that everyone else is heard and the protag isnt  is not an immersion breaker for me, even we never saw his lips move. I think they had it good with the over the shoulder in order to hide that thing in DAO. BUt yes if they want to put more into party interaction through conversation perhaps having the lips move might be needed. Alot of old rpgs operated in the same way, where there wasnt even voices, yet the companions  talked but the protag never said a word, aside from maybe"...." or other expressions, so instead  the companions spoke for him. What is an immersion breaker is having voiced period imo, because you are just watching, not being immersed, someone who is not your voice never allows it from the start, cause he then might as well be a companion. and this is all seperate from the other issues DA2 had, since the dialogue and paraphrase just amde it worse.

We know this is all a lost cause, as bioware already decided mostly they will use voice, but who cares. It still is something that can be discussed. Cause you never know what may happen, not with this, but in the future.

[animedreamer]

To answer the original question.. HELL YES!! no mother watching your mother die simply because its in the script!

[slashthedragon]

Question: for games like Skyrim, did the developers ever say why they chose non voiced over voiced? Or is it a non issue for them?

[Truth]

Yes ı would.

[brushyourteeth]

Yes I would.

The real question is, would players who prefer a voiced protagonist in general still actually choose it if they were presented the choice between a voiced protag or more dialogue options and plot control?

My guess is that they would say they want both, and I don't blame them. But if push came to shove and they'd let a voice protagonist go in order to have a longer, deeper game, then that's telling.

[Saberchic]

Absolutely! More choice is not a bad thing. I don't necessarily need a voiced protagonist to enjoy a game, but I do like the option of having options!

Story > Voiced PC any day!

[Cutlasskiwi]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Yes I would.

The real question is, would players who prefer a voiced protagonist in general still actually choose it if they were presented the choice between a voiced protag or more dialogue options and plot control?

My guess is that they would say they want both, and I don't blame them. But if push came to shove and they'd let a voice protagonist go in order to have a longer, deeper game, then that's telling.

I prefer voiced protagonist and if BioWare were to go back to silent I would like them to remove all voices, NPCs included.

[The Sarendoctrinator]

brushyourteeth wrote...

The real question is, would players who prefer a voiced protagonist in general still actually choose it if they were presented the choice between a voiced protag or more dialogue options and plot control?

My guess is that they would say they want both, and I don't blame them. But if push came to shove and they'd let a voice protagonist go in order to have a longer, deeper game, then that's telling.

I don't see why a voiced protagonist and plot control would be mutually exclusive, that you can only have one without the other. If things happen in the story that are beyond the player's control, then that probably has more to do with the story itself than whether or not the main character has a voice. I'm not talking about autodialogue here - making the protagonist speak without any input from the player definitely is a problem, especially when it happens as much as it did in ME3. But I didn't really have a problem with autodialogue in ME1, ME2, or DA2. Maybe a line or two in the whole game that I can't even remember now. DAO also had a few times where none of the dialogue choices were something I would imagine my character to say, so I picked the closest thing.

I have no problem roleplaying either way. I just enjoy it more when my character can speak and emote and move around like everyone else in the world. It seems more like the character I created has come alive on the screen, rather than just... being there. I know a lot of people feel that they have less control over a voiced character, but to me, it feels like having more control. Instead of choosing a line just for the text, I'm choosing it for their words, the tone of their voice, their expressions and whatever gestures they make.

If I could only have one, would I trade all of that for more plot control? It depends on what I'd be controlling. The most important thing to me is controlling my own character. Aside from that, I need examples. Judging by the BioWare games I've played so far with voiced (ME1/2/3, DA2) and non-voiced (DAO, Jade Empire, maybe ~20% of KOTOR so far) protagonists, I think I've had just as much control over the plot with both. More dialogue options is great, but ME3 was really the only game that got this wrong, in my opinion. ME1/2 and DA2 were perfect, and seemed to have about the same number as DAO.

[brushyourteeth]

The Sarendoctrinator wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

The real question is, would players who prefer a voiced protagonist in general still actually choose it if they were presented the choice between a voiced protag or more dialogue options and plot control?

My guess is that they would say they want both, and I don't blame them. But if push came to shove and they'd let a voice protagonist go in order to have a longer, deeper game, then that's telling.

I don't see why a voiced protagonist and plot control would be mutually exclusive, that you can only have one without the other. If things happen in the story that are beyond the player's control, then that probably has more to do with the story itself than whether or not the main character has a voice. I'm not talking about autodialogue here - making the protagonist speak without any input from the player definitely is a problem, especially when it happens as much as it did in ME3. But I didn't really have a problem with autodialogue in ME1, ME2, or DA2. Maybe a line or two in the whole game that I can't even remember now. DAO also had a few times where none of the dialogue choices were something I would imagine my character to say, so I picked the closest thing.

I have no problem roleplaying either way. I just enjoy it more when my character can speak and emote and move around like everyone else in the world. It seems more like the character I created has come alive on the screen, rather than just... being there. I know a lot of people feel that they have less control over a voiced character, but to me, it feels like having more control. Instead of choosing a line just for the text, I'm choosing it for their words, the tone of their voice, their expressions and whatever gestures they make.

If I could only have one, would I trade all of that for more plot control? It depends on what I'd be controlling. The most important thing to me is controlling my own character. Aside from that, I need examples. Judging by the BioWare games I've played so far with voiced (ME1/2/3, DA2) and non-voiced (DAO, Jade Empire, maybe ~20% of KOTOR so far) protagonists, I think I've had just as much control over the plot with both. More dialogue options is great, but ME3 was really the only game that got this wrong, in my opinion. ME1/2 and DA2 were perfect, and seemed to have about the same number as DAO.

I totally see what you're saying, and you have some valid points. What it all boils down to is the fact that
1. Resources(programming, time, memory, the animation team, money) are used to animate a vocalized protagonist that could have been put elsewhere to make a bigger, more reactive game in terms of story/consequences/dialogue/etc.
2. I've seen some of the developers mention more than once that DA is chock-full of great ideas that will be hard to implement because of the team's limitations on resources. It always goes back to something like "yes, we could have that scene but we'll have to pay for it and there are only so many zots." The general feeling from some fans is that DAII's new voiced protagonist is the culprit to blame for the ways in which the game fell short - it's a real resource eater. But the DA team definitely seems to think it's worth it. They have a vision.

Part of the problem seems to be the friendship/rivalry system. Instead of talking to Morrigan and having six dialogue options to choose from, we talk to Varric and have 3 options that appear if you're in friendship mode, and 3 others that you will only see if you're in rivalry mode. So it's easy for us to take a quick scan of the screen and feel cheated out of more dialogue options -- really they're just spread across the companion system. David Gaider said in a recent forum post that they're probably going back to something more like approval/disapproval.

But then the question still stands - if fans who are extremely pro voiced antagonist could look at something like a pie chart of resources taken up by each area of DAII and they saw the size of the voiced protagonist slice, would any of them decide they'd rather those resources be dispersed back into other facets of the game? I just think it's an interesting question.

[The Sarendoctrinator]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I totally see what you're saying, and you have some valid points. What it all boils down to is the fact that
1. Resources(programming, time, memory, the animation team, money) are used to animate a vocalized protagonist that could have been put elsewhere to make a bigger, more reactive game in terms of story/consequences/dialogue/etc.
2. I've seen some of the developers mention more than once that DA is chock-full of great ideas that will be hard to implement because of the team's limitations on resources. It always goes back to something like "yes, we could have that scene but we'll have to pay for it and there are only so many zots." The general feeling from some fans is that DAII's new voiced protagonist is the culprit to blame for the ways in which the game fell short - it's a real resource eater. But the DA team definitely seems to think it's worth it. They have a vision.

Part of the problem seems to be the friendship/rivalry system. Instead of talking to Morrigan and having six dialogue options to choose from, we talk to Varric and have 3 options that appear if you're in friendship mode, and 3 others that you will only see if you're in rivalry mode. So it's easy for us to take a quick scan of the screen and feel cheated out of more dialogue options -- really they're just spread across the companion system. David Gaider said in a recent forum post that they're probably going back to something more like approval/disapproval.

But then the question still stands - if fans who are extremely pro voiced antagonist could look at something like a pie chart of resources taken up by each area of DAII and they saw the size of the voiced protagonist slice, would any of them decide they'd rather those resources be dispersed back into other facets of the game? I just think it's an interesting question.

It is interesting to think about. I know it takes up more resources to have a voiced, fully-animated protagonist, and certain things have to be planned around that... but I've never personally seen what gets left out because of it, and when I look at games that seem to have as many choices throughout the plot as DAO that also use a voiced protagonist, I can't imagine what it's missing. That's why I'd be curious to see some examples. Or that hypothetical pie chart.

I don't consider the friendship/rivalry system to be a problem caused by Hawke being voiced. They could have done approval/disapproval with a voiced protagonist as well. I actually didn't notice that you get different choices if you're in friendship or rivalry mode, maybe because I often didn't seem to be in one of the modes at all. I had plenty companions who were still in the middle of the scale by the endgame because I kept all of my choices consistent to character, not the system. Which set of dialogue choices are offered in that case? The only problem I see here is that certain options were unavailable if you don't have enough points, and that's not because of the voice acting. Most point-based systems will have a few issues for players who don't stick to one side or the other. (Ironically, some of my favorite moments in DA2 came as a result of me not having enough friendship/rivalry points.)

[Sutekh]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Part of the problem seems to be the friendship/rivalry system. Instead of talking to Morrigan and having six dialogue options to choose from, we talk to Varric and have 3 options that appear if you're in friendship mode, and 3 others that you will only see if you're in rivalry mode.

I've played DA2 with all possible permutations on a given NPC regarding rivalry / friendship and I've never noticed such a thing. IIRC, roughly and most of the times, the lines are the same, no matter your relationship.

Regarless, all lines are already recorded, paid for and stored. Whether they show up is mostly due to how dialog trees are handled according to PC past actions and such (i.e. consequences of past choices, which is a good thing), and possibly the whole friendship / rivalry system. It doesn't cost more to show six available options than to show only two, VA-wise. The money's spent for six anyway.

Edit: Come to think of it, it actually costs more, because filtering options means more code, which in turn means more code testing.

But then the question still stands - if fans who are extremely pro voiced antagonist could look at something like a pie chart of resources taken up by each area of DAII and they saw the size of the voiced protagonist slice, would any of them decide they'd rather those resources be dispersed back into other facets of the game? I just think it's an interesting question.

This raises two questions:

- We've never seen such a pie, and most likely never will - transparency isn't game publishers / devs' forte. Nothing indicates that PC VA would be the biggest slice. I remember a dev saying that, in fact, it wasn't that costly compared to other features (can't dig the link up of course, because my memory sucks). Without actual numbers, you can't honestly say that VA is so expensive that it is the main factor impacting plot and options, and I can't honestly say that it isn't. We're both in the dark and reduced to suppositions, which is why that particular aspect of the debate can't be anything but a battle of opinions with no facts to back up any side of the fence.

- How it actually affects "plot control" is pure speculation. There are many reasons to railroad a plot, zots-saving being only one of them.

Modifié par Sutekh, 18 mai 2012 - 12:51 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

Sutekh wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

But then the question still stands - if fans who are extremely pro voiced antagonist could look at something like a pie chart of resources taken up by each area of DAII and they saw the size of the voiced protagonist slice, would any of them decide they'd rather those resources be dispersed back into other facets of the game? I just think it's an interesting question. 

- We've never seen such a pie, and most likely never will - transparency isn't game publishers / devs' forte. Nothing indicates that PC VA would be the biggest slice. I remember a dev saying that, in fact, it wasn't that costly compared to other features (can't dig the link up of course, because my memory sucks). Without actual numbers, you can't honestly say that VA is so expensive that it is the main factor impacting plot and options, and I can't honestly say that it isn't. We're both in the dark and reduced to suppositions, which is why that particular aspect of the debate can't be anything but a battle of opinions with no facts to back up any side of the fence.

- How it actually affects "plot control" is pure speculation. There are many reasons to railroad a plot, zots-saving being only one of them.

Indeed. Just to look at it from another angle. Would a game with a voiced protagonist get the same budget as one with a silent protagonist? And since BioWare would never reveal such numbers, and frankly it's not something fans need to know, we have no way of seeing just how expansive VA is.

[FASherman]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...
Indeed. Just to look at it from another angle. Would a game with a voiced protagonist get the same budget as one with a silent protagonist? And since BioWare would never reveal such numbers, and frankly it's not something fans need to know, we have no way of seeing just how expansive VA is.

You have hit the nail on the head. You pay $59.95 for DA2 and for Skyrim. DA2 lasted 40 hours and its the same damned plot each time. Skyrim can take you up to 500 hours and the next playthrough you make dozens of different choices and it becomes an entirely different game.

For one, you pay for cinematics and voice acting. For the other, the talent of the developers.

Guess where the money is better spent?

[AkiKishi]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...
Indeed. Just to look at it from another angle. Would a game with a voiced protagonist get the same budget as one with a silent protagonist? And since BioWare would never reveal such numbers, and frankly it's not something fans need to know, we have no way of seeing just how expansive VA is.

It's generally down to the project managers to work out how to spend the money. Money not being infinite , if you spend XX on voice acting you won't have it to spend on other things. The cost of voice acting depends on the voice actor just the same as movie acting costs. Nicholas Boulton (male Hawke) while not A list is very well known (at least in the UK) and he's done numerous game roles. I was no impressed with the voice in DA2 , but I put that down to voice direction and having to act in sound bites.

Take Witcher2, you have a lot of control over the plot and it's voiced. Having to only voice Gertalt rather than snarky Geralt,diplomatic Gertalt or angry Geralt makes for more variations.  Geralt can of course be all those things , and more. But it's not done in such an obvious manner.
The Witcher2 is also against Bioware phillosophy of not cutting content because of choices. After act1 of Witcher 2 you could be playing 2 different games.

Even though it's unvoiced I don't believe there is a single choice in DA:O that has the same impact as the act 1 choice in Witcher2.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 18 mai 2012 - 02:19 .

[Sutekh]

FASherman wrote...

Cutlasskiwi wrote...
Indeed. Just to look at it from another angle. Would a game with a voiced protagonist get the same budget as one with a silent protagonist? And since BioWare would never reveal such numbers, and frankly it's not something fans need to know, we have no way of seeing just how expansive VA is.

You have hit the nail on the head. You pay $59.95 for DA2 and for Skyrim. DA2 lasted 40 hours and its the same damned plot each time. Skyrim can take you up to 500 hours and the next playthrough you make dozens of different choices and it becomes an entirely different game.

For one, you pay for cinematics and voice acting. For the other, the talent of the developers.

Guess where the money is better spent?

My money is better spent in games that I enjoy.

You can look at it this way:

For DA2, I pay for Bioware's talent at telling a story, staging it and focusing on the plot and characterization (whether you like said plot is a matter of opinion, and Act III set aside, because yeah, it was bad). DAO was already in the same category of cinematic games. That's the spirit of the DA franchise.

For Skyrim, I pay for Bethesda's talent at focusing on the world and the lore, and giving me the opportunity to explore said world. Characterization takes a back-seat far, far away (unless you're into fanfiction or, like me, come with a whole lot of from scratch headcanon), the main plot itself is almost reduced to the strict minimum - and there's nothing wrong with that for this type of game.

Those games are barely comparable. I like both equally. I'm into variety. I could also prefer a plot-driven, heavy on characterization game to a very nebulous and simplistic one when it comes to those things. It's really a matter of taste, and you can't say one subgenre is superior to the other. They're just different.

Besides, it takes talent to create good cinematics and VA direction.

((and I'm still trying to figure out how your answer to Cutlasskiwi is in any way related to what he wrote))

Modifié par Sutekh, 18 mai 2012 - 02:53 .

[Chaos Lord Malek]

Voice Acting isn't limiting choices in game. Its like saying that music is limiting amount of voice actors for NPCs. Or Origins limits the actual campaign content (like another big allies quest for the Denerim battle). Voice Acting is just another part of the game, like models, textures, artworks, cinematics, music, sound effects,etc...

Only thing that limits the game are the money and time that are spend on it.

So i don't want to trade voiced protagonist for a more choices in story flowchart. I want both, but on the other hand i wouldn't mind if Bioware decided to make a set character for the next game (like in Witcher and Planescape:Torment) - for instance Cullen or maybe Morrigan.

[AkiKishi]

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

Voice Acting isn't limiting choices in game. Its like saying that music is limiting amount of voice actors for NPCs. Or Origins limits the actual campaign content (like another big allies quest for the Denerim battle). Voice Acting is just another part of the game, like models, textures, artworks, cinematics, music, sound effects,etc...

Only thing that limits the game are the money and time that are spend on it.

So i don't want to trade voiced protagonist for a more choices in story flowchart. I want both, but on the other hand i wouldn't mind if Bioware decided to make a set character for the next game (like in Witcher and Planescape:Torment) - for instance Cullen or maybe Morrigan.

Indirectly it is. Around 40% of all lines are taken up by the PC that's almost half of the VA budget. It's not realistic to have that with multiple origins unless all the characters are shallower as result so the figure comes out more or less the same.

Money and time are always factors, can't really ignore those.

After playing Deus Ex,Witcher2 I've reached the same conclusion. The stuff you determine about Hawke is so trivial, and the character/plot is so restricted.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

After playing Deus Ex,Witcher2 I've reached the same conclusion. The stuff you determine about Hawke is so trivial, and the character/plot is so restricted.

This is a big part of what makes DA2 a bad game.

If we're not in control of the character, there is no point playing the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Yes I would.

The real question is, would players who prefer a voiced protagonist in general still actually choose it if they were presented the choice between a voiced protag or more dialogue options and plot control?

My guess is that they would say they want both, and I don't blame them. But if push came to shove and they'd let a voice protagonist go in order to have a longer, deeper game, then that's telling.

I prefer voiced protagonist and if BioWare were to go back to silent I would like them to remove all voices, NPCs included.

There was an option to mute the voices in DAO.  Did you use it?

If not, then any incongruity caused by the NPCs voices is your own fault.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 mai 2012 - 05:23 .

[Realmzmaster]

Why is it only give up voice acting for more control. Let's go a step further and remove the music and have only sound effects during battle. If moving from one area to another have only the sound of footsteps or wagons being drawn. Get rid of all those pesky new fangled graphics in fact let's have all text like Eamon or minimal graphics like Rogue or Hack.

That way more money can be used to have more plot control. If you do not like the VA that is fine, but there are other things that can be changed and not just voice acting to give more plot control and save zots. In fact eliminate voice acting, music and establish minimal graphics and you can then create a more intensive story with greater plot control.

In fact DAO could have had more plot control by eliminating the NPCs voices. In fact for loading screens just have a progress bar or the words loading as some of the old games did. There are plenty of ways to save zots and resources.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 18 mai 2012 - 05:56 .