767 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

Also, let me be clear about the preparation of saved games to be imported. A lot of people didn't just do that just before a new title game out. We did that right from the start. I think only a small amount of people were interested in doing that right before the release of the new title. Remember, crazy fans like me, who are here daily, probably played a good BW title a dozen times or so.

[jillabender]

sjpelkessjpeler  wrote…

I did several playthroughs of DA2. When I finished my first there were a lot of open questions for me. Thought that I would get answers when I did my second by doing different choices the game offered. My unanswered questions still were there..

If choices are made available (which they should because that's the reason for me to play RPG) then there has to be cause and concequence that is affected by the choices made by the player.

VO and cinematics can be mixed very well but I felt that the VO in DA2 led to a cinematic that was preset. In other
words the choices given to me as a player had no real consequence as the story evolved the same in the major lines. This became very clear for  me in my second playthrough.

I agree – even when I played through DA2 making a different set of choices throughout, the story still felt the same. I had fun playing DA2, but I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as DA:O, partly because it felt as though the game was offering choice just for the sake of having choice, instead of offering choices that added to the story in meaningful ways.

That being said, there were some choices in DA2 that did leave an emotional impact on me – Hawke's responses during Merrill's companion quest, for example. That quest actually did feel different depending on how Hawke responded to Merrill's choices.

Modifié par jillabender, 25 juin 2012 - 11:23 .

[Fallstar]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree strongly.  For myself, the first playthrough is always the most significant.  The fact that I couldn't side with UNATCO in Deus Ex was disappointing, but the fact that I strongly believed that I could made my first playthrough so memorable and entrenched the game among my favourites of all time.  Nothing can replace that.

I also know that many people (myself too) replay their characters with metaknowledge.  They go into games going "I'm going to go darkside this time and kill the Wookiees" or "I'm going to side with Caesar's Legion this playthrough"

I feel it's impossible to fully disassociate prior knowledge from subsequent playthroughs because the player will use that prior knowledge to understand what levels of choice he can make in the game.  It's why someone will replay Dragon Age Origins expecting to make different choices in the game, while someone replaying Final Fantasy 7 is not going to have that expectation.  It's an observer bias that can only be completely removed if you were able to literally delete everything relevant from your mind.  I haven't figured out how to do that yet.

Replayability is awesome from the standpoint of "Cool this game reacts differently based on this choice and that's awesome!"

I never reload except due to death on my first playthrough of any RPG, because doing so I taint my experience and allow the knowledge of future events change alter my perspective.  Even if things all go to crap and the world is falling apart all around me, I deal with it and move on.  I find it so much more fun.  I can't get this on my subsequent playthrough because I already have an expectation of what the consequences are of my actions.  I make the different choices just to see how the game can play out differently because that's interesting and fun in a different, more metagaming sort of way.  Seeing if I can save person X, or seeing if I can avoid such and such.  Stuff like that.

Yes, I agree strongly here. I think a rewind option isn't really a solution, and could be quite laborious too if you've got 5 or so paraphrases to get through before you can pick one. I also think it would harm the 'integrity' of your first playthrough. These days when I replay Origins I know exactly what each character is going to pick at every choice in the game bar one, but that first playthrough where you didn't know what the consequences of your actions were is kind of hard to beat. E.g. I put Bhelen on the throne even though his moral sense was somewhat lacking, as I thought he'd make a stronger king than Harrowmount. When the epilogue slide revealed I was right, it made me smile. If you rewind through all the options, you lose some of that.

[Fast Jimmy]

A rewind option BEGS the player to metagame. It is, essentially, a cheat for dialogue.

A word-for-word statement of what is actually going to be said would be a much easier and logical solution to the complaints of paraphrasing.

However, it seem DG and company are sticking with their paraphrase guns, according to some recent posts he has made. So the point is a little moot. They have just promised to go other routes with the paraphrasing to make it a little more... predictable.

[AngryFrozenWater]

One thing I think is very important about dialogue and that is it's location within the gameplay. By that I mean is that there should be at least an autosave before a dialogue. Sometimes dialogue follows combat. In that case it doesn't allow the game to be saved manually before the dialogue. When you make a booboo in that dialogue such an autosave would prevent you from having to do the combat again. The same goes for combat that follows dialogue. The start of the combat should be autosaved as well. That should be everywhere. So that should allow at least more than 2 autosaved games. Numbered ones. Say up to 4. Ideally a game should do that everywhere. Sometimes I notice that it isn't done consistently. I think content builders do that manually. Maybe the engine should take care of it, so that devs can forget about it. Just an idea.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 juin 2012 - 11:35 .

[LobselVith8]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If this is often an issue for someone...

This very issue is the main reason people complain about the paraphrase system.  The paraphrases are demonstrably obfuscatory.  Fixing that should be the primary thing BioWare is working on with regard to the dialogue in future games.

Don't make us guess at what line we're selecting.  Let us know.

Based on what the developers have said so far, it doesn't seem that Bioware will fix the issue with paraphrases (and auto-lines).

[AngryFrozenWater]

Whether it is a specific dialogue repeat option, or more simply a good and consistent autosave feature, it is important to know it is very userfriendly to have something like that. Cheating is the least of my concerns. We are supposed to be adults and I do not want anyone to limit how I want to play, because that person feels I am cheating. If it is optional then it is none of his or her concern. Am I am being polite here. Also, during a dialogue the phone or the doorbell can ring or something happens in the house that requires your attention. When you come back you are at least distracted, so redoing the dialogue seems like a logical solution.

[Fast Jimmy]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Whether it is a specific dialogue repeat option, or more simply a good and consistent autosave feature, it is important to know it is very userfriendly to have something like that. Cheating is the least of my concerns. We are supposed to be adults and I do not want anyone to limit how I want to play, because that person feels I am cheating. If it is optional then it is none of his or her concern. Am I am being polite here. Also, during a dialogue the phone or the doorbell can ring or something happens in the house that requires your attention. When you come back you are at least distracted, so redoing the dialogue seems like a logical solution.

I did not mean to imply that liking this Rewind feature is pantamount to cheating. I think the problem is that players are able to try an option, have the not-optimal outcome, and then immediately hit the rewind. It fixes the unclear paraphrases problem, but it makes it easy to choose the best option every time. This is, to an extent, why the option to save your mother was removed from DA2 - because people saw it as a failure outcome and would reload. Which means almost no one would go through that option. 

That said, I agree that an auto save function would be optimal. A separate auto save before combat and before dialogue situations might solution the problem? That way even situations where combat immediately follows dialogue could have the option to reload?

[Dragoonlordz]

Not keen on rewind but not the end of the world, however it does cause issue with replayability but I guess it's the person who uses it's fault if they damage their own replayability by using it to see all outcomes of choices by way of reloading.

I dislike investigate options however in your games, it destroys replayability and becomes a chore. You would have seen all but the outcome of the choices which leads to spamming through dialogue because you have seen it all before. When replay DA or ME currently people have seen everything in between the dialogue 'choices' in the first play through due to the only branching being the choices themselves with everything inbetween those times you make a choice being the same dialogue wise, spamming through same dialogue throughout entire game.

Solution 1. One idea is branching dialogue or as I like to call it picking a route through dialogue. To have routes be cut off by events and path chosen through what was most important for you the player to ask based on the persona of your character in order for the next time around I will know there is many things I have not spoken about to my companions or NPCs; at any stage of the game not just after picked certain choices and rest is seen already first time around. I like the principle of prioritization with the idiology of asking what is most important to you and the persona of your character, the surprise of events ending dialogue at any time based on route you took through discussion as opposed to what we have had over and over in Bioware's titles being general rule spam through investigate and make a choice. I know what I like or would like to see is not popular but it is what it is.

Solution 2. Improve your tone system, build on it and improve it so where different persona of character would result in different dialogue 'content' not just the replied tone from the NPC's being different yet still getting same dialogue content form the NPC's and characters remaining same as would in any tone. Ideally I think your tone system would need other improvements too but thats topic for different time. It seemed to me most of the dialogue content in game was same from the NPCs regardless of tone  for almost all NPC's except companions and key characters which leads back to spamming investigate problem.

Solution 3 (prefer myself). Now if possible the better idea is if Bioware can learn one thing from CDPR more than anything else it is how to branch story via locations and character/NPC's. When branching is done right in the story itself in where end up in a different location with different characters and NPCs, different quests and different perspective on the story from a different side then this removes the first run through seen everything people have to say problem I have issue with in the first place. In this situation it offsets the dialogue issue because the second playthrough is in fact with different NPC's and characters and situations therefore different dialogue altogether.

Do I think Bioware will ever handle branching like this... Doubtfull base on past history.

Because of this there is the alternative of picking routes through dialogues as mentioned above so second playthrough picking a different route will see both different dialogue yet from the same characters and NPC's alongside the different outcomes of different events from choices made through dialogue. But also as I said, I know this is not popluar with the ones who just want to do single playthrough and see everything in that playthrough. They want differences to be limited to outcomes of choices where I want there to either be better branching to remove the duplication and spamming on investigate between choices or going down the route through dialogue idea.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 26 juin 2012 - 03:08 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Whether it is a specific dialogue repeat option, or more simply a good and consistent autosave feature, it is important to know it is very userfriendly to have something like that. Cheating is the least of my concerns. We are supposed to be adults and I do not want anyone to limit how I want to play, because that person feels I am cheating. If it is optional then it is none of his or her concern. Am I am being polite here. Also, during a dialogue the phone or the doorbell can ring or something happens in the house that requires your attention. When you come back you are at least distracted, so redoing the dialogue seems like a logical solution.

I did not mean to imply that liking this Rewind feature is pantamount to cheating. I think the problem is that players are able to try an option, have the not-optimal outcome, and then immediately hit the rewind. It fixes the unclear paraphrases problem, but it makes it easy to choose the best option every time. This is, to an extent, why the option to save your mother was removed from DA2 - because people saw it as a failure outcome and would reload. Which means almost no one would go through that option. 

That said, I agree that an auto save function would be optimal. A separate auto save before combat and before dialogue situations might solution the problem? That way even situations where combat immediately follows dialogue could have the option to reload?

Yeah. That would be best. Like I posted earlier, 4 numbered autosaves that rotate. It would be best to have the engine regulate those (just before dialogue and combat), because it seems that level builders have to manually give instructions for that and they do forget them in some situations.

As a workaround I do a manual quick save when needed, but the game doesn't always allow that when in combat. The above system would prevent having to do that.

On BSN it is not as bad as, for an example, the Beth forums, where lots of people are trying to ban fast travel. But people often don't have a clue that what for them means cheating or lazy and is optional can be avoided by simply not using it.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 26 juin 2012 - 06:17 .

[Cultist]

VO will appeal to call of duty crowd, but game will kill another part that made it a great RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...

It all depends on whether or not the cost of adding saving functionality to conversations (which behind the scenes were actually cutscenes) would actually justify the cost.[/quote]
Yet another strike against cinematic conversations.

Any chance we can get pausable cutscenes like NWN2?
[quote]Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I think you're underestimating the influence foreknowledge has on how some people play.[/quote]
I think you're overestmating how much influence foreknowledge has to have on how some people play.  that players often allow metaknowledge to influence their decisions is not evidence that they must.
[quote]I'm impressed that you can pick a line and stick to it no matter what you know of the NPC responses, but that's not so for everyone.[/quote]
I can do that because getting a specific outcome isn't my goal,  My goal is to play my character in a specific way.  If I've chosen the proper dialogue option, then I've succeeded.

Anyone who wants to play his character can make a similar choice.
[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree strongly.  For myself, the first playthrough is always the most significant.[/quote]
The same was true for me until the games started to lie to me about what my character was going to do.  Now the first playthrough is, at best, a necessary chore to find out what it is I'm allowed to do.
[quote]I also know that many people (myself too) replay their characters with metaknowledge.  They go into games going "I'm going to go darkside this time and kill the Wookiees" or "I'm going to side with Caesar's Legion this playthrough" [/quote]
Yes, lot's of people do replay in this way.  But that's not the only way to replay.
[quote]I feel it's impossible to fully disassociate prior knowledge from subsequent playthroughs because the player will use that prior knowledge to understand what levels of choice he can make in the game.[/quote]
It depends how you're making the decisions.  If you're making the decisions in an effort to direct the story, then yes, you;re absolutely correct.  But if the outcomes are irrelevant, then your knowledge of those outcomes are also irrelevant.  Since my goal is to play my character appropriately to his personality, the outcomes are irrelevant, as the outcomes have nothing to do with her personality.
[quote]It's why someone will replay Dragon Age Origins expecting to make different choices in the game, while someone replaying Final Fantasy 7 is not going to have that expectation.[/quote]
As an aside, I played FF7 for about 2 hours before it became obvious that there were no choices to be made at all.  Then I shut it off and sold it.

But I'll happily replay a game while making exactly the same choices I did on a previous playthrough.  It's not the ability to affect the outcomes that matters - its the ability to make the choices.  If I enjoyed the story told by my gameplay with that one character enough, I could well want to play through that same game with that same character again.
[quote]Replayability is awesome from the standpoint of "Cool this game reacts differently based on this choice and that's awesome!"[/quote]
Replayability is awesome from the standpoint of "Cool I can drop a different character into this world and he perceives the same world differently and does different things."

You and I are replaying for different reasons.
[quote]I never reload except due to death on my first playthrough of any RPG, because doing so I taint my experience and allow the knowledge of future events change alter my perspective.  Even if things all go to crap and the world is falling apart all around me, I deal with it and move on.  I find it so much more fun.[/quote]
Me too.  As long as I'm able to play my character without having to reload in order to nagvigate the dialogue system, I also don't reload except due to death.  in fact, sometimes I won't even reload death.  If it's clear that my character's choices have lead to his demise, I won't beat my head against the wall trying to change that.  I'll call that playthrough complete and start again with a different character. 
[quote]I can't get this on my subsequent playthrough because I already have an expectation of what the consequences are of my actions.[/quote]
Whereas, I can get exactly the same satisfaction from subsequent playthroughs because nothing I've learned from the previous playthroughs is relevant to my gameplay objectives.
[quote]I make the different choices just to see how the game can play out differently because that's interesting and fun in a different, more metagaming sort of way.  Seeing if I can save person X, or seeing if I can avoid such and such.  Stuff like that.[/quote]
I design different characters to see how the game can play out differently.  Sometimes a new character will see the game play out the same, but for different reasons.  That's as rewarding an outcome for me as one where I see entirely new content.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 juin 2012 - 06:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

A rewind option BEGS the player to metagame. It is, essentially, a cheat for dialogue.

It allows metagaming, yes.  It also gives the players access to essential knowledge they cannot otherwise have.

And I insist it is impossible to cheat in a single-player game.  You can play the game however you like.  Playing in a way that diminishes your own fun is idiotic.  Why would anyone do that?

However, it seem DG and company are sticking with their paraphrase guns, according to some recent posts he has made. So the point is a little moot. They have just promised to go other routes with the paraphrasing to make it a little more... predictable.

No, they've said their are ways to "improve" it.  They have not said that this improvement necessarily includes greater predictability.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I did not mean to imply that liking this Rewind feature is pantamount to cheating. I think the problem is that players are able to try an option, have the not-optimal outcome, and then immediately hit the rewind. It fixes the unclear paraphrases problem, but it makes it easy to choose the best option every time. This is, to an extent, why the option to save your mother was removed from DA2 - because people saw it as a failure outcome and would reload. Which means almost no one would go through that option.

They should have left the option in.  Again, it is not BioWare's job to protect us from ourselves.

This is just like Redcliffe.  I love that there was a perfect outcome in Redcliffe, and I love that there was almost no in-character reason to select it.  If the option to save Leandra were similar, that would work very well.

That said, I agree that an auto save function would be optimal. A separate auto save before combat and before dialogue situations might solution the problem? That way even situations where combat immediately follows dialogue could have the option to reload?

That would still make the first time through any conversation an arduous task as the player went through the conversation over and over again to find out what the options were.

Having to replay the parts of the conversation you've already managed to get right is really irritating, especially when you have to do it several times.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is just like Redcliffe.  I love that there was a perfect outcome in Redcliffe, and I love that there was almost no in-character reason to select it. 

I'd argue that there are plenty of in-character reasons to do it, the game just fails to support them mechanically. You just wiped out the demon's forces, which it had built up over time, with 4 people and some help from the locals, who are potentially all still alive. There's absolutely no reason to assume that you couldn't leave some or all of your party members behind (you could potentially have up to 6 "extra" party members, and if you traveled alone to the Circle, you could leave as many as 9 behind) to keep the demon suppressed while you go for help. Bioware could have handled it like they did during the final battle. That they failed to do so does not remove the fact that it would be the logical course of action for many characters.

That said, I'm not sure what I think of rewinding dialogue. While it may to some extent alleviate the paraphrase problem, it seems such an awkward solution that it would be in many ways offputting, though I suppose less so than having to constantly reload and redo conversations.

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think that's just a value added of it being a good game. I'm not saying that replaying to make different decisions isn't fun. It is!

I think it still often comes back to the experience you had with the first playthrough though. You go into subsequent playthroughs thinking "Okay, I'm going to make a different choice at this plot point, and then another from that plot point. I am curious if the game will react well to it!"

At it's core though, I think people only set up ME1 and ME2 because they loved the game so much (part of it motivated by the choices that could be made. People didn't even care about the consequences of them especially in ME1, which didn't have many consequences). If people didn't like ME1 or ME2 on their first playthrough, my guess is that those people would be less inclined to replay the game.

A poor game with lots of different choices and consequences is still a poor game, is it not? Or does the replayability of it accent it in some way?

It has to be a game I enjoy playing. Alpha Protocol was one I would have liked to replay ,but the system and some questionable boss battles just sucked the fun out of the idea.
I never create characters just to see content. I've played FO:V three times but never joined the Legion.
I've played FFV more times than I can count because I can tinker with the job system and extra skills endlessly and make crazy parties. Even though the story is the same, the tactics required become radically different.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I think you're underestimating the influence foreknowledge has on how some people play.

I think you're overestmating how much influence foreknowledge has to have on how some people play.

Hm? Some of the people in favour of the rewind idea seem to like it specifically because it grants metaknowledge and will enable them to go for the result they desire.

  that players often allow metaknowledge to influence their decisions is not evidence that they must.

*shrug* For my first game I simply prefer not to have that metaknowledge, and it seems as though I am not alone.

Nor are you, but that we both have our own preferences of playstyle just goes to show the rewind idea would only be ideal for your side and the people who actively desire metaknowledge, not mine.

Again though, I would not be against the feature. I wouldn't use it, because it would adversely affect my enjoyment of the first run.

I'd prefer something that allowed advance disclosure of what my character will say, without revealing any NPC lines.

I'm impressed that you can pick a line and stick to it no matter what you know of the NPC responses, but that's not so for everyone.

I can do that because getting a specific outcome isn't my goal,  My goal is to play my character in a specific way.  If I've chosen the proper dialogue option, then I've succeeded.

Anyone who wants to play his character can make a similar choice.

That's nice, but again that's not so for everyone.

[Xewaka]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Hm? Some of the people in favour of the rewind idea seem to like it specifically because it grants metaknowledge and will enable them to go for the result they desire.

*shrug* For my first game I simply prefer not to have that metaknowledge, and it seems as though I am not alone.

I'd prefer something that allowed advance disclosure of what my character will say, without revealing any NPC lines.

Apparently, under the current system they designing, there's no way of obtaining the bolded part without metaknowledge. Which frankly, is yet more proof of the inadequacy of the paraphrases as a dialogue UI.

[Samuel_Valkyrie]

I think the 'tone' is a relative safe solution for the problem posited. You have a general idea of what will be said, and a general idea of the content, but what is said and how it is reacted on stays a surprise. Plus, you have savegames, if you feel the need to HAVE to know it beforehand. And once you've played through the game a couple of times, you can go for your perfect run. But a rewind can be very annoying and detrimental for the game. It's implemented in SW:TOR, only because you actually have absolutely no way to redo a conversation once you've started it.and no savegame to load from either. But even there, a lot of people halt gameplay compeltely, just to pick the response that best suits them, either in-character, or with the most companion affection (or least demerits).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

*shrug* For my first game I simply prefer not to have that metaknowledge, and it seems as though I am not alone.

All else being equal, I would prefer not to have metaknowledge.  But all else isn't equal.  Forced to choose between having metaknowledge and not being able to control my character, I choose the metaknowledge.

Without the rewind function (or something else that grants the player information about what the dialogue options actually are), the player is forced to guess when choosing between paraphrases.  That's not okay.

Nor are you, but that we both have our own preferences of playstyle just goes to show the rewind idea would only be ideal for your side and the people who actively desire metaknowledge, not mine.

Again though, I would not be against the feature. I wouldn't use it, because it would adversely affect my enjoyment of the first run.

I'd prefer something that allowed advance disclosure of what my character will say, without revealing any NPC lines.

So would I, but BioWare has rejected the solutions we've proposed so far.  If you have a suggestion as to how we get that information without uncovering metaknowledge, I'd love to hear it.

[Endurium]

@OP, Bioware prefers making games these days which are little more than interactive movies, so VO will be in. For a true gaming experiences I play older Bioware games or games from other developers.

Modifié par Endurium, 26 juin 2012 - 05:46 .

[batlin]

Since this is the only voiced vs silent protagonist thread allowed atm, I'll repost my topic

FIRST, I do not believe either voiced or silent protagonists is bad. Both can be done right and both can be done wrong. However, whether either is done correctly relies entirely on the protagonist him/herself. Specifically, whether his/her personality is constant or whether his/her personality is supposed to reflect the players'.

(I'm going to refer to protagonists as "he" from now on because being gender-neutral is annoying.)

For example, Shepard vs. the Warden.

Shepard is a fleshed-out character with a relatively constant demeanor. No matter what dialogue options you choose, Shepard is still Shepard, and you can believe the guy who just punched out a journalist is the same guy who would later joke around with Garrus. It's very clear the voice actors had a solid character in mind when they read Shepard's lines. This is obviously not the case for the Warden, because the Warden has no set personality or demeanor because the player gets to choose what they are.

Don't get me wrong, you don't have absolute control over how the Warden is and we likely never will have the amount of control over a video game character as we would a pen-and-paper RPG character, but it's not impossible to get close. With the Warden there's a much wider array of personalities and demeanors that are represented because the Warden is silent. With a silent protagonist, the player gets to decide the demeanor of the responses in their own mind's ear, and that's why you can believe the Warden who scares off hungry refugees is the same guy who reunites a peasant with her family.

Now, let's talk about Hawke. Hawke is a Warden-like character if you made him voiced. The problem with this is that since there's a wide array of personalities that are supposed to be available as was the case with the Warden, there's no way a voice actor can say each line as the player wants them to. The solution to this problem is that there are 3 Hawkes: Nice Hawke, "funny" Hawke, and puppy-kicking Hawke (note that while there are multiple "kinds" of responses, they all do fall into one of these three personality types). The result of this is that there is no way whatsoever to believe that the Hawke who romances Isabela is the same who hands her over to be killed. Unless you commit to one of these Hawke's throughout the entire game, your Hawke will appear to have a severe case of MPD. I used this example a couple times before, and I like it, so I'll use it again:

Peasant: Oh thank the Maker! Help me, Champion, my daughter has been kidnapped!

Hawke: Well I could never refuse to help a damsel in distress

Peasant: Oh thank goodness, the ruffians are holed-up in that building over there.

Hawke: I WILL SLAUGHTER THE INGRATES AND MOUNT THEIR HEADS UPON MY MANTLE

Peasant: Uh...ok, well just be sure to bring my daughter back safe please

Hawke: Do not worry, my friend. I swear on my life that no harm will befall your daughter

Peasant: Oh thank you, Champion! Oh, but one more thing, I am but a poor farmer and I won't be able to reward you for this kindness

Hawke: DIE, YOU FREELOADING WORM *kills peasant*


To sum up, both voiced and silent protagonists can be done well, but voiced cannot be done well if the player is supposed to have freedom over their character's demeanor.

Modifié par batlin, 27 juin 2012 - 12:08 .

[jillabender]

batlin wrote...

Since this is the only voiced vs silent protagonist thread allowed atm, I'll repost my topic

FIRST, I do not believe either voiced or silent protagonists is bad. Both can be done right and both can be done wrong. However, whether either is done correctly relies entirely on the protagonist him/herself. Specifically, whether his/her personality is constant or whether his/her personality is supposed to reflect the players'.

(I'm going to refer to protagonists as "he" from now on because being gender-neutral is annoying.)

For example, Shepard vs. the Warden.

Shepard is a fleshed-out character with a relatively contant demeanor. No matter what dialogue options you choose, Shepard is still Shepard, and you can believe the guy who just punched out a journalist is the same guy who would later joke around with Garrus. It's very clear the voice actors had a solid character in mind when they read Shepard's lines. This is obviously not the case for the Warden, because the Warden has no set personality or demeanor because the player gets to choose what they are.

Don't get me wrong, you don't have absolute control over how the Warden is and we likely never will have the amount of control over a video game character as we would a pen-and-paper RPG character, but it's not impossible to get close. With the Warden there's a much wider array of personalities and demeanors that are represented because the Warden is silent. With a silent protagonist, the player gets to decide the demeanor of the responses in their own mind's ear, and that's why you can believe the Warden who scares off hungry refugees is the same guy who reunites a peasant with her family.

Now, let's talk about Hawke. Hawke is a Warden-like character if you made him voiced. The problem with this is that since there's a wide array of personalities that are supposed to be available as was the case with the Warden, there's no way a voice actor can say each line as the player wants them to. The solution to this problem is that there are 3 Hawkes: Nice Hawke, "funny" Hawke, and puppy-kicking Hawke (note that while there are multiple "kinds" of responses, they all do fall into one of these three personality types). The result of this is that there is no way whatsoever to believe that the Hawke who romances Isabela is the same who hands her over to be killed. Unless you commit to one of these Hawke's throughout the entire game, your Hawke will appear to have a severe case of MPD. I used this example a couple times before, and I like it, so I'll use it again:

Peasant: Oh thank the Maker! Help me, Champion, my daughter has been kidnapped!

Hawke: Well I could never refuse to help a damsel in distress

Peasant: Oh thank goodness, the ruffians are holed-up in that building over there.

Hawke: I WILL SLAUGHTER THE INGRATES AND MOUNT THEIR HEADS UPON MY MANTLE

Peasant: Uh...ok, well just be sure to bring my daughter back safe please

Hawke: Do not worry, my friend. I swear on my life that no harm will befall your daughter

Peasant: Oh thank you, Champion! Oh, but one more thing, I am but a poor farmer and I won't be able to reward you for this kindness

Hawke: DIE, YOU FREELOADING WORM *kills peasant*


To sum up, both voiced and silent protagonists can be done well, but voiced cannot be done well if the player is supposed to have freedom over their character's demeanor.

I completely agree. I've only played a little bit of Mass Effect, but it seems to me so far that it uses the voiced protagonist style to far better effect than DA2 did – for exactly the reasons you described.

And your example cracked me up, because I had many similar experiences of "MPD Hawke" while playing DA2!

Modifié par jillabender, 26 juin 2012 - 10:55 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

All else being equal, I would prefer not to have metaknowledge.  But all else isn't equal.  Forced to choose between having metaknowledge and not being able to control my character, I choose the metaknowledge.[/quote]

And that's fair enough. Hopefully you'll get something that works for you.

[quote]Without the rewind function (or something else that grants the player information about what the dialogue options actually are), the player is forced to guess when choosing between paraphrases.  That's not okay.[/quote]

It's certainly less than desirable for those of us who want to know what our own characters are going to say. :/ I think Bioware is aware of this too, if they were seriously looking in to some of the suggestions the community floated.

[quote]
I'd prefer something that allowed advance disclosure of what my character will say, without revealing any NPC lines.[/quote]
So would I, but BioWare has rejected the solutions we've proposed so far.  If you have a suggestion as to how we get that information without uncovering metaknowledge, I'd love to hear it.[/quote]

Well, at least they rejected our proposals after investigating them. They have already said in the past that they'd prefer to only implement 'solutions' that function appropriately and don't make the game look like crap, which is fair. Even though some of us don't give a damn about cluttered interfaces if it means we get 100% dialogue clarity, that's only some of us.

Unfortunately, unless the system being used for dialogue is altered, it severely restricts the suitability of fix suggestions. They're not getting rid of VO or paraphrases, and because of that PC dialogue is written with follower lines (autotext) in mind.

So long as there is autotext, it's impossible to grant 100% PC dialogue clarity without inferring some metaknowledge. Even if the NPC lines are never displayed and we're shown only the PC's side of the dialogue branch, we'd still have the context of half a conversation (arguably better than nothing).

I doubt my solution of 'Stop writing follower PC lines' will be met with enthusiasm by Bioware considering that's how they choose to write VO dialogue. It's no secret they're aiming for a more cinematic experience, and player agency is going to suffer for that no matter what.