767 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

SirGladiator wrote...

I think sometimes things get a bit deceptive, as if its truly 'voice or no voice' which was never the case. In DAO your main character had a voice, said plenty throughout the game, and you even got to pick what kind of voice you wanted. They simply didnt say the actual lines during the cutscenes. That tradeoff enabled you to say exacty what you wanted to say, and have it sound exactly the way you wanted it to sound, in your mind. It was a pretty good deal, DA2 certainly wasn't an improvement over that. If you could pick exactly what you wanted to say, that at least would be an improvement, but the whole 'dialogue wheel' 3 options, good bad or sarcastic, is simply a downgrade over the original, this isnt Mass Effect where something like that can work. You need more than those few options in the DA universe for it to live up to its full potential, and as DA is obviously much more of an RPG, you really do need to know exactly what you're saying before you say it, voiced or otherwise.

As Ive stated before, the best thing they could do, if they're intent on using VO, is to start the game with the character silent, then at the end of the beginning portion of the game, based on the choices you've made up to that point, that determines which of the two or three possible voices your character has. We all know that different VAs do 'good' better, 'bad' better, and 'sarcastic' better, so give us two or three different VAs, so that we arent stuck with a VA that is really good at being bad, but sucks at being good, or vice-versa (I dont know if they want to keep 'sarcastic' as an option, it seems like one could be good or bad and still be sarcastic, I dont think it necessarily needs its own separate option/VA). Having multiple VAs would not only make the voicework superior because it would be playing to each VA's strengths and avoiding his/her weakenesses, but it would also give the players more of a feeling of control, that they are indeed dictating what and how things are being said. Obviously it would take a bit more of an effort to have 4 VAs instead of 2, but I'm pretty certain it could be done without too awful much difficulty.

What you are suggesting is cost prohibitive. All four VAs would have to record all the lines for one gender. It would then take another 4 VAs for the other gender not even taking into consideration different races. Even using unknown voice actors the cost would be substantial. Also what one person considers a excellent voice actor for the good lines may suck to some else.

The problem is that whether you like a voice actor or not is very subjective. Starting with a silent protagonist and going to voice is simply immersion breaking. The complaint is that voice acting already chews up enough of the budget. What you are suggesting would consume even more.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Agreed. 

As awesome as Planescape Torment was, I did NOT like the fact that it gave me the option to say the same line twice, one as a lie option, one unmarked (insinuating truth). 

I should not ba e to tell the game if my character is lying or not. The game shouldn't be making that decision for my character.

Three reasons.

1. Aligment in AD&D

It still could have been done better.  Have the alignment shift based on what I do, not based on what I say I'll do.

2. You can get spotted when lying. Which will change how things play out.

If an NPC can call me on lying, then sometimes they should do that when I'm not lying.  Otherwise they're reading my mind.

You can't know when someone is lying, particularly if they themselves do not know.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

ashwind wrote...

I think you will have a love hate relationship regarding Witcher 2 then. You probably hate the combat but will love the RPG elements.

I havent played the Easy mode on Witcher 2 but even on Normal, some find it to be too brutal - especially certain encounters. Mainly because you have to prepare before hand and failing to do so will make things much harder and it has a very poor tutorial - basically doesnt provide enough information to guide 1st time players.

Easy is very easy. Just get the bomb skill in the alchemy tree and the double reagent (same tree) and you can bomb your way through most of the game. Dark will give Dark Souls a run for its money..

But it being easy won't make it any less irritating.  My complaint with action combat isn't that it's difficult - it's that it's boring.  Action combat makes me do thinkgs constantly throughout combat.  I don't want to implement every aspect of my character's actions.  I would much rather sit back and watch my character fight than tell him exactly when to swing his sword every 2 seconds.

If ME3 did to combat what it did to dialogue, I would have been pretty happy about that.

[BlackFulcrum]

A must, no, DA:O proved that it can function very well without.

Personal preference, yes, but only if done well, and I did not find Hawke in DA2 done well, the character felt flat, as did the voice acting, maybe I'm spoiled with Jennifer Hale as my femShep in the ME series, but Hawke just didn't feel all that good.

And if multiple race choice comes back, please give every race a different voice actor, a dwarf doesn't sound like a human, nor does an elf sound like a kossith.
I know that probably going to up the costs, but it's either that, or no voice, a single voice actor for each gender with multiple race choices just doesn't work.

[Fredward]

BlackFulcrum wrote...
Personal preference, yes, but only if done well, and I did not find Hawke in DA2 done well, the character felt flat, as did the voice acting, maybe I'm spoiled with Jennifer Hale as my femShep in the ME series, but Hawke just didn't feel all that good.

Jennifer Hale is amazing isn't she? I am incapable of playing a manshep with her voicing femshep. She's just that good. It also suits my Shepard freakishly well.



Since a silent protagonist would be absolutely retarded in a cinematic game (unless their tongue was cut out, HEY THERE'S A SOLUTION!!!!) and I like the cinematic approach I'm going with yes, it is necessary.

[Talonfire]

No, I don't think it's a must. Voice acting wouldn't have contributed anything to my experience playing as the Courier in Fallout: New Vegas, it would have taken away from it since his or her dialogue would have been less verbose, they'd have had less options available, and I wouldn't have been able to decide what they sound like for myself.

I find good writing more important than a voice, and voice acting generally imposes a limitation on protagonist dialogue, not to mention it it leaves nothing to the imagination. In New Vegas I have the freedom to determine what each of my characters sound like, in Mass Effect I'm always stuck with the wooden performance of Mark Meer and the overacting of Jenniffer Hale, neither which I particularly enjoyed or found appropriate.

Modifié par Talonfire, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:09 .

[bEVEsthda]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Since a silent protagonist would be absolutely retarded in a cinematic game (unless their tongue was cut out, HEY THERE'S A SOLUTION!!!!) and I like the cinematic approach I'm going with yes, it is necessary.

I disagree. Just to lay down a background to this, we can first establish that SP games do great. Very well indeed. You could probably even construct some argument there, that they are a number of times more popular than voiced.

So why assume that a less than perfect cinematic presentation, compromising with a silent protagonist, is going to be a failure? I don't believe so. And I believe that thinking so, represents being more hung up on the cinematic presentation, than the game. The game is what is important. Not the cinematics. Cinematics is what one can use to convince corporate heads of the 'quality' of the game, but it won't fool gamers.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:44 .

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Since a silent protagonist would be absolutely retarded in a cinematic game (unless their tongue was cut out, HEY THERE'S A SOLUTION!!!!) and I like the cinematic approach I'm going with yes, it is necessary.

I disagree. Just to lay down a background to this, we can first establish that SP games do great. Very well indeed. You could probably even construct some argument there, that they are a number of times more popular than voiced.

So why assume that a less than perfect cinematic presentation, compromising with a silent protagonist, is going to be a failure? I don't believe so. And I believe that thinking so, represents being more hung up on the cinematic presentation, than the game. The game is what is important. Not the cinematics. Cinematics is what one can use to convince corporate heads of the 'quality' of the game, but it won't fool gamers.

When it's talking heads it works fine. When a character needs to project SP's fall flat.

Shepards address to the crew in ME. Either someone else delivers it or you get a silent "speech".
More recently in KOA several key moments are either voiced by NPCs or given as silent "speeches"
DO:A has a couple of moments like that, Landsmeet comes to mind

I have no idea if there are moments like that in Skyrim. Still not gotten around to it. But FO and the other TES games I've played don't seem to focus on them.

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

I disagree. Just to lay down a background to this, we can first establish that SP games do great. Very well indeed. You could probably even construct some argument there, that they are a number of times more popular than voiced.

I can construct an arguement that Pokemon sells better than TES. But it does not mean I want to see Pikachu in DA3.

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

I disagree. Just to lay down a background to this, we can first establish that SP games do great. Very well indeed. You could probably even construct some argument there, that they are a number of times more popular than voiced.

I can construct an arguement that Pokemon sells better than TES. But it does not mean I want to see Pikachu in DA3.

Lol, which is as good as any reason, to why I didn't construct any such argument. It was just an empty threat.

[Pasquale1234]

BobSmith101 wrote...
When it's talking heads it works fine. When a character needs to project SP's fall flat.

Shepards address to the crew in ME. Either someone else delivers it or you get a silent "speech".
More recently in KOA several key moments are either voiced by NPCs or given as silent "speeches"
DO:A has a couple of moments like that, Landsmeet comes to mind

DAO's Landsmeet scene and Alistair / Anora's inspirational speech were the only scenes in all of DAO that might have benefitted from voicing the Warden.  If they felt those scenes were seriously lacking, they could have used the VA the player chooses for battle cries at the beginning of the game, and left the rest of it unvoiced.  Maybe they thought that inconsistency would be too jarring?  I don't know.

Those scenes didn't bother me at all, because my Wardens were fully voiced, but not by a VA I didn't choose. 

And, imho, the benefits of a non-voiced protag greatly outweigh whatever value that voicing a cutscene might provide.

[Fast Jimmy]

Having speeches in games by the main character is trite to me. I'm not a general. I am not a leader of armies. If I was, I wouldn't have all the free time to roam around half of the country/planet/galaxy. When it's your squad, that's even worse. It makes me feel like I am preaching to my followers and find myself rolling my eyes at my own 'character.'

I grit through the scenes the first time, like when Shepherd does it on the Normandy in ME1, just to make sure it doesn't have any plot information or choices that matter. Then I skip them every time.

If THAT'S the only reason people can come up with to have a voiced PC, then that's a poor argument indeed. It's a shallow attempt to make our character more 'alive' but it requires interfering and sacrificing what really helps many people connect to their character in the first place (multiple dialogue choices - more than three standards, voicing the actor in their own mind and having more solid control on their actions and words - with full text dialogue for the PC).

So bow to this sorry reason for a voiced PC, I will not.

[bEVEsthda]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Having speeches in games by the main character is trite to me. I'm not a general. I am not a leader of armies. If I was, I wouldn't have all the free time to roam around half of the country/planet/galaxy. When it's your squad, that's even worse. It makes me feel like I am preaching to my followers and find myself rolling my eyes at my own 'character.'

I grit through the scenes the first time, like when Shepherd does it on the Normandy in ME1, just to make sure it doesn't have any plot information or choices that matter. Then I skip them every time.

If THAT'S the only reason people can come up with to have a voiced PC, then that's a poor argument indeed. It's a shallow attempt to make our character more 'alive' but it requires interfering and sacrificing what really helps many people connect to their character in the first place (multiple dialogue choices - more than three standards, voicing the actor in their own mind and having more solid control on their actions and words - with full text dialogue for the PC).

So bow to this sorry reason for a voiced PC, I will not.

This. ^

Thankyou Jimmy.

But we actually know the DA3 protagonist will be voiced, so this is kinda an academic discussion.
More to the point is if it's possible to make voiced protagonist work. And how. Or if SP is really a must.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:31 .

[Talonfire]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Having speeches in games by the main character is trite to me. I'm not a general. I am not a leader of armies. If I was, I wouldn't have all the free time to roam around half of the country/planet/galaxy. When it's your squad, that's even worse. It makes me feel like I am preaching to my followers and find myself rolling my eyes at my own 'character.'

I grit through the scenes the first time, like when Shepherd does it on the Normandy in ME1, just to make sure it doesn't have any plot information or choices that matter. Then I skip them every time.

If THAT'S the only reason people can come up with to have a voiced PC, then that's a poor argument indeed. It's a shallow attempt to make our character more 'alive' but it requires interfering and sacrificing what really helps many people connect to their character in the first place (multiple dialogue choices - more than three standards, voicing the actor in their own mind and having more solid control on their actions and words - with full text dialogue for the PC).

So bow to this sorry reason for a voiced PC, I will not.

I concur, I actually found Shepard's speeches to be incredibly cheesy and could have easily lived without them.

[Fast Jimmy]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

DAO's Landsmeet scene and Alistair / Anora's inspirational speech were the only scenes in all of DAO that might have benefitted from voicing the Warden.  If they felt those scenes were seriously lacking, they could have used the VA the player chooses for battle cries at the beginning of the game, and left the rest of it unvoiced.  Maybe they thought that inconsistency would be too jarring?  I don't know.

Those scenes didn't bother me at all, because my Wardens were fully voiced, but not by a VA I didn't choose. 

And, imho, the benefits of a non-voiced protag greatly outweigh whatever value that voicing a cutscene might provide.

Huzzah!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Having speeches in games by the main character is trite to me. I'm not a general. I am not a leader of armies. If I was, I wouldn't have all the free time to roam around half of the country/planet/galaxy. When it's your squad, that's even worse. It makes me feel like I am preaching to my followers and find myself rolling my eyes at my own 'character.' 

Moreover, forcing the PC to be a leader of men is simply fixing that aspect of his personality.  That's never okay.  If I design a character who isn't a leader, he shouldn't forced to lead.  DAO did a better job of accommodating this than any BioWare game since BG2, I think, in that the Warden could routinely defer to his companions (BG2 allowed the PC to say nothing at all for almost the entire game).

It's incongruous, often, forcing the PC to be a leader.  It made no sense for the PC to be the leader for most of KotOR, for example.  On Taris, Carth should have taken charge, and after Dantooine I'd suggest Bastila would have made the most sense as leader.

There is no benefit to forcing the PC to be the leader.  So overhauling the dialogue system specifically to accommodate that is awfully misguided.

[Jerrybnsn]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

Having speeches in games by the main character is trite to me.................. It makes me feel like I am preaching to my followers and find myself rolling my eyes at my own 'character.' [/quote]

[quote ]Moreover, forcing the PC to be a leader of men is simply fixing that aspect of his personality.  That's never okay....................It's incongruous, often, forcing the PC to be a leader. .[/quote]

I believe that's the definition of being a Stooge.

[Fredward]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Having speeches in games by the main character is trite to me. I'm not a general. I am not a leader of armies. If I was, I wouldn't have all the free time to roam around half of the country/planet/galaxy. When it's your squad, that's even worse. It makes me feel like I am preaching to my followers and find myself rolling my eyes at my own 'character.'

I grit through the scenes the first time, like when Shepherd does it on the Normandy in ME1, just to make sure it doesn't have any plot information or choices that matter. Then I skip them every time.

If THAT'S the only reason people can come up with to have a voiced PC, then that's a poor argument indeed. It's a shallow attempt to make our character more 'alive' but it requires interfering and sacrificing what really helps many people connect to their character in the first place (multiple dialogue choices - more than three standards, voicing the actor in their own mind and having more solid control on their actions and words - with full text dialogue for the PC).

So bow to this sorry reason for a voiced PC, I will not.

-le sigh- It doesn't have to be an argument though. It's a preference. If I like to stand on my head for extended periods of time it is not something I have to justify. I do it because I like it. Some people prefer a silent protagonist some prefer a voiced, neither is somehow superior to the other and the fact that you prefer one or the other should not have to be defended.

Although now I do understand why Bioware uses "artistic integrity" it really IS impossible to please everyone.

[Fast Jimmy]

They would only have to please people who liked their original games if they hadn't drastically changed their format.

So its a grave they've dug for themselves.

[Pasquale1234]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

-le sigh- It doesn't have to be an argument though. It's a preference.

It's a lot more than preference.

Where the cinematics and VO provided a more enjoyable gaming experience for some people, it made an incredibly frustrating one for others.  People have different approaches to gaming, and different playstyles.  DAO supported multiple playstyles; DA2 does not.

IOW, the playstyle of some people was made invalid / impossible by the gameplay features implemented in DA2.  I tried valiantly, multiple times to role-play Hawke, and was never successful, just really frustrated.  With DAO, I became enraptured with this new franchise and intriguing new world to explore - but since BioWare has made the decision not to support my playstyle going forward, I guess I won't be able to continue to participate in this franchise.

So - something that you may see as a preference or benefit is a complete loss for others.

[Fredward]

^^ Bear with me I don't know how to multiquote. Jimmy, "grave" is a strong word. Bioware might lose some hardcore RPGers (maybe) but they did just make $200 million on a game even though it was shrouded in controversy, or maybe because of that. I do get what you mean though.

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

-le sigh- It doesn't have to be an argument though. It's a preference.

It's a lot more than preference.

Where the cinematics and VO provided a more enjoyable gaming experience for some people, it made an incredibly frustrating one for others.  People have different approaches to gaming, and different playstyles.  DAO supported multiple playstyles; DA2 does not.

IOW, the playstyle of some people was made invalid / impossible by the gameplay features implemented in DA2.  I tried valiantly, multiple times to role-play Hawke, and was never successful, just really frustrated.  With DAO, I became enraptured with this new franchise and intriguing new world to explore - but since BioWare has made the decision not to support my playstyle going forward, I guess I won't be able to continue to participate in this franchise.

So - something that you may see as a preference or benefit is a complete loss for others.

You didn't get what I meant though, or maybe I worded it poorly, sorry for that, English isn't my first language. Anyway what I meant was that how strongly you feel FOR a silent protagonist there are people who feel JUST as strongly for a voiced/cinematic approach. One view is not better than the other with the idea that a voiced protagonist is somehow superior in some way, people just get... attached to one or the other. Bioware can obviously not please both parties so they choose whichever one they think works best for the story they want to tell. Though I'm sure they have oodles of delicious statistics about how many people prefer voiced or silent and such.

Anywhoo, now might be a good time to make clear that I do not have particularly strong feelings towards either. I would prefer voiced, because I've become used to it, but that doesn't mean I don't see the appeal to a silent protag.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If THAT'S the only reason people can come up with to have a voiced PC, then that's a poor argument indeed. It's a shallow attempt to make our character more 'alive' but it requires interfering and sacrificing what really helps many people connect to their character in the first place (multiple dialogue choices - more than three standards, voicing the actor in their own mind and having more solid control on their actions and words - with full text dialogue for the PC).

So bow to this sorry reason for a voiced PC, I will not.

I've seen a lot of great reasons from people who prefer voiced protagonist.

For me it's all about perspective. I'm a 3rd person girl and always have been, even back when I started with tabletop games and later continued with games like Baldur's Gate. For that reason I never saw it as a 180° spin between DAO and DA2 that many others complained about. The VO made sense and was a natural step for me, so I want it to stay. It suits my playstyle and enhances my enjoyment in the game. Simple as that.

[Pasquale1234]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

You didn't get what I meant though, or maybe I worded it poorly, sorry for that, English isn't my first language. Anyway what I meant was that how strongly you feel FOR a silent protagonist there are people who feel JUST as strongly for a voiced/cinematic approach.

Oh, but I think I do understand that - and your English is excellent.

What I was trying to convey in the previous post (and apparently failed) is that non-voiced, non-cinematic is not a preference for me.  I would like to be able to role-play a voiced, animated avatar, and have tried - but I can't.

To me, role-playing is what an actor does.  When a VA and animated avatar are doing all the acting, I end up feeling like the frustrated understudy hanging out backstage, waiting for my opportunity to role-play, which never comes.  I also found that Hawke often surprised me by saying / doing things I did not expect - which is also contrary to the idea that you are an actor playing a role.

What I am describing is a playstyle that was supported by DAO, but is not supported by DA2.  I believe that most people who really like the VO and animations are people whose playstyles are supported by those features.  There are other playstyles that are rendered impossible by those same features.

I understand it's all academic, because BioWare has apparently decided to abandon players who aren't able to work with voiced, animated protags.  I still check in from time to time because I enjoy some of the conversations here.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pasquale is correct. It isn't just that we don't like playing with the voice+paraphrase, but that we don't know how.

If there would some sort of tutorial available, maybe that would help, but no such guidance has yet been offered.

[Jerrybnsn]

I enjoyed play Geralt in the Witcher2. Selecting his responses and seeing how it plays out was fun and entertaining. However, I don't play rpgs that way. For all its great VO and graphics, the Witcher2 wasn't as satisfying or as personal as a game as Origins. A set protagonist with a VO does this.  Which is fine if you want to make those games, but how are you ever going to reach the level of Origins if you removed one of its chief componets?

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 03 juillet 2012 - 10:53 .