767 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlasskiwi]

Nope, it's not a must. I prefer it over a silent protagonist though since it enhances my game experience tremendously and I enjoyed the VA in DAII very much.

[Jerrybnsn]

ashwind wrote...

I see no difference. The only difference is perhaps Bioware fell too short of player expectation with DA2 while TES didnt. I do not blame the VO for this, just look at the development time Bioware allocated for DA2.

Again,  The use of VO or the lack of VO has not shown to have any negative or postive effect on if people want to play your games.  So if the use of VO causes the extermination of a beloved RPG element, like race options, then I rather see the VO go.

[ianvillan]

Its not VO that is the main problem but all the problems that VO brings with it, like auto-dialogue, bad paraphrasing, lack of races,less resources, less conversation choices, etc.

Yes people could say that DA2 had less time and money compared to Origins so that may be the reason that alot of things were cut, but if you have less resources why then spend what you have on a majorly expensive one like VO and cut the other parts that players enjoyed.

[AkiKishi]

ianvillan wrote...

Its not VO that is the main problem but all the problems that VO brings with it, like auto-dialogue, bad paraphrasing, lack of races,less resources, less conversation choices, etc.

Yes people could say that DA2 had less time and money compared to Origins so that may be the reason that alot of things were cut, but if you have less resources why then spend what you have on a majorly expensive one like VO and cut the other parts that players enjoyed.

Brent was very old school as a designer. DA:O reflected that and was appreciated because of it.
With DA now it's more a case of marketing and merchandising than just being a game.Can't really market a variable.

[ianvillan]

BobSmith101 wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Its not VO that is the main problem but all the problems that VO brings with it, like auto-dialogue, bad paraphrasing, lack of races,less resources, less conversation choices, etc.

Yes people could say that DA2 had less time and money compared to Origins so that may be the reason that alot of things were cut, but if you have less resources why then spend what you have on a majorly expensive one like VO and cut the other parts that players enjoyed.

Brent was very old school as a designer. DA:O reflected that and was appreciated because of it.
With DA now it's more a case of marketing and merchandising than just being a game.Can't really market a variable.

I dont think marketing even knows how to market a RPG like Origins, which I believe is the reason of the iconic looks for followers so it is easy for marketing to work with.

[ashwind]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
Again,  The use of VO or the lack of VO has not shown to have any negative or postive effect on if people want to play your games.  So if the use of VO causes the extermination of a beloved RPG element, like race options, then I rather see the VO go.

Of course I agree that VO is not necessary for RPG games. Your original question is "Is VO a must for DA3".

For Bioware, I would say that it is a must; more so to Bioware than it is to me because DAO is the last game they did without VO and VO has become something people identify with Bioware games.

DA2 without VO, with race selection is still not a great game - it is worst actually and the sale would be even lower because people who buy it for VO wont buy it at all.

Bioware can do VO and they can do very good VO. Why throw that away? VO is not "broken" per-se. 
I gladly throw race out of the window for better environment, atmosphere and quest; especially sidequest. To me those are the most lacking elements in DA2 and that is why the majority is not happy with DA2.

People are generally only unhappy with VO because they feel that the price of VO came at too high a cost. However people in general are not saying that VO is done badly cos it is not. So why pick on VO and lose sight of the real problems of DA2? 

I say, if Bioware put another 1.5 years into DA2 - it would have turned out very well. No matter how many races they let me choose from, even if they had unique VO for all the races with all the dialogue option , if I see DA3 showing and re-using the same freaking environments for the entire game and have silly "fetch" sidequests, I swear I will burn my copy.

[Jerrybnsn]

ashwind wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...
Again,  The use of VO or the lack of VO has not shown to have any negative or postive effect on if people want to play your games.  So if the use of VO causes the extermination of a beloved RPG element, like race options, then I rather see the VO go.

Of course I agree that VO is not necessary for RPG games. Your original question is "Is VO a must for DA3".

For Bioware, I would say that it is a must; more so to Bioware than it is to me because DAO is the last game they did without VO and VO has become something people identify with Bioware games.

So you don't see it as necessary, but you won't purchase DA3 if you know that it doesn't have a voiced protagonist?  That's what I'm asking.

Bioware can do VO and they can do very good VO. Why throw that away? VO is not "broken" per-se. 
I gladly throw race out of the window for better environment, atmosphere and quest; especially sidequest. To me those are the most lacking elements in DA2 and that is why the majority is not happy with DA2.

Yes, they can write very well and the vocied protagonist cinematically interacting with his/her companions is fun and very interesting.  And I recognize that the character cinematics is more important for you in playing Dragon Age and not customization of your character.  A lot of games do this. They fall in line with Action games with set protagonists and iconic looks.  I don't play rpg that leave out the customization of characters.  Too me its breaking the cardnial rule of what "role playing" is all about.  I guess that's old school, because when I first sat down to play D&D, the DM didn't say "Here, your a human".  Too me, technology today should be getting more to RPG elements in video games and not less.

[ashwind]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
So you don't see it as necessary, but you won't purchase DA3 if you know that it doesn't have a voiced protagonist?  That's what I'm asking.

I am neutral. Will buy DA3 with or without VO, with or without race selection as long as it is done well without the problems I stated above.

Yes, they can write very well and the vocied protagonist cinematically interacting with his/her companions is fun and very interesting.  And I recognize that the character cinematics is more important for you in playing Dragon Age and not customization of your character.  A lot of games do this. They fall in line with Action games with set protagonists and iconic looks.  I don't play rpg that leave out the customization of characters.  Too me its breaking the cardnial rule of what "role playing" is all about.  I guess that's old school, because when I first sat down to play D&D, the DM didn't say "Here, your a human". Too me, technology today should be getting more to RPG elements in video games and not less.  

Cinematics are not important to me at all, nice to have but not necessary. Not all action games have set protagonists and games with set protagonist like Final Fantansy has as much "action" as a 2000 year old mummy - burried under 60ft of sand.

I think you are having problem with the degree of customization and not the lack of customization - because you can customize your Hawke - with limitations, okay, lots of limitation but it is there.

Besides, does just being able to pick a race makes a better RPG? You like Skyrim, tell me how different are races treated by the virtual world. When everyone else ignores mostly that you are a Khajiit, what does it matter? It is only a different graphical model. I rather they not make something half-cooked like that. If I can select my race, I expect my experience to be vastly different (different questlines, different conversation, different armor, etc) when I pick different races, otherwise they dont mean a thing.

Unfortunately, technology today is still too primitive to be able to replace a human DM and developers are still very limited by technology. 

Modifié par ashwind, 19 juin 2012 - 03:13 .

[AkiKishi]

ashwind wrote...
Unfortunately, technology today is still too primitive to be able to replace a human DM and developers are still very limited by technology. 

Technology is not really the problem. For a DM to "create" something takes about as long as it takes to say the words.
What we are seeing is a sea change from a game that takes place in the players head, to a game that takes place on screen.

You can't create a game that takes place in the players head, if the player does not want to play. You simply end up with empty spaces. Likewise the more you put the game on screen, the more you need to present the player with a fully realised character.

[DarkDragon777]

No.

[ashwind]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Technology is not really the problem. For a DM to "create" something takes about as long as it takes to say the words.
What we are seeing is a sea change from a game that takes place in the players head, to a game that takes place on screen.

You can't create a game that takes place in the players head, if the player does not want to play. You simply end up with empty spaces. Likewise the more you put the game on screen, the more you need to present the player with a fully realised character.

A DM can improvise on the fly, the player can think of unlimited ways to deal with a situation and the DM is always able to respond to those ideas.

As much as I like the idea of a game that takes place in the players head... how many of you have ever played MUD and for those who have played MUD, can you go back and play it now? 

[Jerrybnsn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

ashwind wrote...
Unfortunately, technology today is still too primitive to be able to replace a human DM and developers are still very limited by technology. 

You can't create a game that takes place in the players head, if the player does not want to play. You simply end up with empty spaces. Likewise the more you put the game on screen, the more you need to present the player with a fully realised character.

Why not?  The DM was nothing more than the director of a story that we may or may not want to play.  Also as the moderator to what we could or could not do.  I always picked mage

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 19 juin 2012 - 03:52 .

[Zanallen]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

But Bioware has also been known for allowing race options to create your own character as well as Bethesda.  So in this case DA2 deviated from the Bioware formula. 

Race selection is actually not a big part of the "Bioware formula". It has only appeared in five of Bioware's fourteen or so games.

[Elhanan]

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

I personally prefer a silent protagonist. It helps me to immerse more in my character, I prefer roleplaying in my head, so to speak. I'd rather want to fill the gaps with my imagination than to hear my character say things I had not intended for her to say. Also, if the VO sucks, you're basically ****ed during all of the game. Or if the voice doesn't suit your character's personality, that can also be an annoyance. It also limits the player him/herself, as his/her character is no long his/her character, but defined by the developers. And that is what I dislike most in RPGs. RPGs are about roleplaying your own character, afterall. I'd rather want to see improved facial features, so that my character at least can show some more emotions. I actually think Baldur's Gate was succesful on the field of voice acting. You could choose a voice set which contained a set of short phrases, which your character would use during the game. Granted, the phrases were limited, but I thought they were sufficient. But all in all, I'd still prefer a silent protagonist, mostly also because there are more text-based options available. Players who can't be bothered to read (I'm loooking at you, Teddie Sage) honestly shouldn't be bothered to play RPGs in the first place. If you want cinematic sequences, go hire a movie.

I somewhat agree that a poor VO can be distracting; one that does not fit the character. I often say the same for the music, as good music is often ignored rather than capturing the attention of the Player for good or bad.

But I have yet to hear anything less than acceptable and talented VO work in either the DA or ME series. Both male and female leads have been pleasant and enjoyable.

For example, I am not a fan of the male Jedi Consular VO in SWTOR (did not appeal to my thoughts of the muscular body type), but have been well pleased with the Sith Inquisitor and Bounty Hunter work. And the other classes I have heard have been good, too. This was factor in choosing a Sorcerer over the Consular among a couple other things.

My point is that Bioware's record for me is well above average, and based on prior games, am hoping for more in DA3. It will not kill me to get a silent character again, but it is somewhat noticable now.

[kaymarierose]

Definitely not. VO takes away resources that can go to other places. Without a VO, dialogue is improved and there are more choices to the player.

DA:O was a fantastic game, I loved that it didn't have a VO. That sort of thing needs to stay with Mass Effect, where there is only one protagonist. With games DA, at least in Origins, there are multiple protagonists with largely different backgrounds that use largely different voices, to VO them all is money wasted. I like creating my character's voice and tone, I don't need the game to decide that for me.

Also, I like to be the character. If they add a voice to the character, it is no longer me in the game, its someone else.

[Vormaerin]

Jerrybnsn wrote...



So once the story starts taking precedence over the rpg elements of a game, and you start tossing out those elements to better round out a cinematic story, it becomes less of an rpg and, hence the fan disappointment like DA2 was.

For DA3, I would like to see the rpg elements the main focus of the game and the great cinematics and storytelling to back that up.  Like Origins was!

The "create your own personalized character" is one kind of Roleplaying.  Its playing a role you invent yourself.  Its not the only way ot have good roleplaying.   Playing a role is playing a role, whether you create the character or you take your cues from existing material.   The roleplaying tournaments at D&D conventions judged you on the ability to play a provided character.

My problem with the create your own character style of RP in a video game is that you can't.   The character is going to do and say what the game designer desires regardless of what you think.   I was livid about Alistair's treason in DAO, but I didn't have the option to say any of the things *I* wanted to say.   DA2 has the same issue. I wanted to push more on the "rose killer" thing, but that's not an option.   That's especially galling because of how it plays out in the end.

So, given that I'm not going to play the character I want to play anyway, I much prefer playing a role that is closely tailored to the story so that when I do "get in character" the story pays off.   Although I liked it anyway, in some senses DAO was the worst of both worlds.  It pushes you into this very specific scenario about your background and such and then doesn't pay off.   Once you step out of that "origin", your character gets replaced by "generic warden."   Its a sucker punch to the RP gland, imho.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 19 juin 2012 - 07:33 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Vormaerin wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...



So once the story starts taking precedence over the rpg elements of a game, and you start tossing out those elements to better round out a cinematic story, it becomes less of an rpg and, hence the fan disappointment like DA2 was.

The "create your own personalized character" is one kind of Roleplaying.  Its playing a role you invent yourself.  Its not the only way ot have good roleplaying.   Playing a role is playing a role, whether you create the character or you take your cues from existing material.  

Any game is a role playing game by your definition.  Tetris can be a role playing game since you role play each shape and choose where it goes.  When someone mentions a rpg though they are talking D&D elements of role playing.  Did you ever play D&D?

[Vormaerin]

Jerrybnsn wrote...


Any game is a role playing game by your definition.  Tetris can be a role playing game since you role play each shape and choose where it goes.  When someone mentions a rpg though they are talking D&D elements of role playing.  Did you ever play D&D?

Well, I got started late.  About 1980.  So I missed the brown books edition.   You seem to have missed the part where I mentioned D&D tournaments at conventions.    Where your roleplaying ability was judged on your ability to play a pre defined character.

What distinguishes roleplaying games is that you are making decisions in the game; decisions based on dialogue, personality, and plot.    So you can argue  "I"m playing the role of a soldier in  Shootermania XXXV" but there is no character development, decision making beyond which gun to use, or meaningful dialogue.   I did have one of the Blizzard Devs tries to convince me that Diablo 2 was an RPG once. That was amusing.

I guess that "The Witcher",  "Deus Ex", and "Alpha Protocol" aren't RPGs by your definition?

[Realmzmaster]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...



So once the story starts taking precedence over the rpg elements of a game, and you start tossing out those elements to better round out a cinematic story, it becomes less of an rpg and, hence the fan disappointment like DA2 was.

The "create your own personalized character" is one kind of Roleplaying.  Its playing a role you invent yourself.  Its not the only way ot have good roleplaying.   Playing a role is playing a role, whether you create the character or you take your cues from existing material.  

Any game is a role playing game by your definition.  Tetris can be a role playing game since you role play each shape and choose where it goes.  When someone mentions a rpg though they are talking D&D elements of role playing.  Did you ever play D&D?

If they are talking about the D & D roleplaying elements I do believe that Vomaerin mentioned about the roleplaying tournaments one plays at the big gaming conventions like Gen Con in which the player is judged on how well the player steps into the role of a predefined character along with others in the party. So I can assume that he has played D & D quite extensively like I have. 

You wish to lump all roleplaying into your definition of it . The definition of roleplaying encompasses more than the view in which you wish to confine it. 

[macrocarl]

I love VO and hope BW never goes back. That said, I don't mind reading........

[Dakota Strider]

If the game has VO, then the main character no longer belongs to the player(s), it belongs to the writers and voice actor. They may as well take away our choices of what they look like, and take away the option to even add a first name. Without a recorded voice, the player at least has the illusion of having their character use whatever type of voice they would want to imagine. With a recorded voice, there is always going to be a number of people that will not like that voice at all, and it will ruin the whole game for them. I am sure everyone can think of at least one example of a voice that drives them nuts to listen to. If a voiceless game ruins the game for someone, is it because they cannot use their imagination as they read the lines?

I would be a proponent of Voiced protagonist IF there were about a dozen voices to choose from (ok a dozen may be greedy, SIX human voices to choose for, for each gender, and two or three to choose from for each gender of each non-human race).

Since the cost of doing this, would mean that the game would have to cut corners in so many other areas, and it still may not be able to make a profit, I know this will never happen, at least not in the near future. And I will bet, that there would not be more than one Voice actor / gender, and that it will force us into Humans as the only race...again. And it means that not everyone will be pleased with the sound of the voice that is used.

There are so many negatives to having a Voiced Protagonist, mostly in what it takes away from the rest of the game. It should be enough to have voiced companions and npc's, and give the players the freedom to play a wider range of character races, and personalities, than force a VO on us, that severely limits our choices, and basically makes us manage Bioware's character, rather than play the character we wish to play.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 19 juin 2012 - 10:08 .

[Darth Death]

"Is VO a must for DA3?" No, but for the current BioWare, yes.

[Realmzmaster]

Dakota Strider wrote...

If the game has VO, then the main character no longer belongs to the player(s), it belongs to the writers and voice actor. They may as well take away our choices of what they look like, and take away the option to even add a first name. Without a recorded voice, the player at least has the illusion of having their character use whatever type of voice they would want to imagine. With a recorded voice, there is always going to be a number of people that will not like that voice at all, and it will ruin the whole game for them. I am sure everyone can think of at least one example of a voice that drives them nuts to listen to. If a voiceless game ruins the game for someone, is it because they cannot use their imagination as they read the lines?

I would be a proponent of Voiced protagonist IF there were about a dozen voices to choose from (ok a dozen may be greedy, SIX human voices to choose for, for each gender, and two or three to choose from for each gender of each non-human race).

Since the cost of doing this, would mean that the game would have to cut corners in so many other areas, and it still may not be able to make a profit, I know this will never happen, at least not in the near future. And I will bet, that there would not be more than one Voice actor / gender, and that it will force us into Humans as the only race...again. And it means that not everyone will be pleased with the sound of the voice that is used.

There are so many negatives to having a Voiced Protagonist, mostly in what it takes away from the rest of the game. It should be enough to have voiced companions and npc's, and give the players the freedom to play a wider range of character races, and personalities, than force a VO on us, that severely limits our choices, and basically makes us manage Bioware's character, rather than play the character we wish to play.

Why should it be enough to have voiced companions and NPCs? If I am going to use my imagination then do away with the graphics, music and sound effects. Let's go back to Eamon or Super Eamon where text was used to describe the scene much like a DM. I can then totally use my imagination. Interactive Fiction (infocom, Level 9 etc) has never had a problem describing what was going on . Eamon (Super Eamon) and Swordthrust series also used only text. This way the entire game can be done in the gamer's head. Let's not just cherry pick one aspect. I will pick on all of them.

Gamers get engrossed in Hack and Angband with only ASCII graphics and minimum sound effects. Combat can be done by hitting A for attack and any special abilities get assign a function key or letter of the alphabet. We can go back to black and white line drawings like the original Wizardry if we wish to be a little above minimalistic.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 19 juin 2012 - 11:11 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Vormaerin wrote...

I guess that "The Witcher",  "Deus Ex", and "Alpha Protocol" aren't RPGs by your definition?

The Witcher2 has some RPG elements like inventory and choice of skill progression, but the pre-defined character that was based on a series of books never made me feel like he was my character. I was trying to figure him out the whole game.  I never did get very far in the skill tree by the time the game was over.  Awesome story with awesome graphics, but , no, it didn't feel like an rpg to me.

Dues Ex is suppose to be an rpg?  I thought it was a stealth game like Splinter Cell. I'll have to get back to trying to play it.  The concept was great; a kind of Blade Runner meets Matrix, but the graphics looked so outdated that it reminded me of another game in 2000 that I played were I was looking all around for a typewrter ribbon to save the life of me.

I know both of these games have something similiar, Story Choice.  But from the old days when I read those books that said "if you choose to go down the road turn to pg 32", I never thought of them as a role playing game but as a book that was fun for its alternate stories.

Halo Reach allowed you to choose what type of trooper you were, customize the armor from helmet to boots, and choose the coloring of said armor (green and white: Spartan colors).  But I wouldn't define that as an rpg either.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 19 juin 2012 - 11:17 .