778 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

In regard to the Shepherd comments being made, there are two obstacles to the logic that Shepherd is voiced, people have 'their Shepherds', ergo people can connect with a VO character.

The first fallacy is that while there are people (like myself) who liked and played ME and DA, not every DA player likes ME and vice versa. So what works in one group may not work in another.

The second obstacle to this logic is that Shepherd is a very set character and that is accepted from the start. Shepherd is a soldier in the Alliance, the first human Spectre, features that define his past, his background, his mindset and his experience. The spice of gender, 'class' (all different types of soldiers) and his background (only a factor in ME1) are all tiny in comparison to who Shepherd is.

He is a commanding officer, his crew was familiar with him and he has experience giving orders. He's got a close relationship with his CO, Anderson. He knows combat, both ground and space, and has a good grasp on most aspects of galactic civilization. Essentially, he's a ready-out-the-box character. None of the choices he makes in the whole series ever invalidates this background, this definition.

Meanwhile, a DA character like the Warden has a very varied background, but their knowledge of the Thedas and how they view the world can vary greatly. Because of this unset view of the world, any number of actions that are as limited as just 'diplomatic, snarky or aggresive' will not be enough.

Shepherd is player ready, a set character in many ways, most of the ways that matter. By taking this set character and making some choices in how they act and how they interact with people, you can define Shepherd enough to make him feel yours. The Warden isn't a soldier, they can be a wide variety of backgrounds, skills and experience. Hawke can too, despite being more set. But with Hawke, the VO failed, since we could not imagine any background that may not be conflicted with later dialogue.

In summary, with Shep, we were told and shown very early on the he had his own life before the player came along. The Warden had a background, but was given enough latitude with every response that this background could be created and built upon without impediment. Hawke was not set, but was limited in what we could realistically create, so he became a flat, unreal character.

This is not a recommendation to have set characters going forward. But it is an indictment that a VO only works with a more set protagonist.

[Oerwinde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sure, but Shepard is Shepard. The Warden or Bhaalspawn could be any number of races or backgrounds. The Warden can be a Cousland, Aeducan, Amell and so forth. With Shepard or Hawke you're just creating a slightly different version of a fixed character.

As for people feeling BioWare owns a character like Hawke as opposed to the player, I think its not necessarily symptomatic of some other feature but more all of those features (voice acting, dialogue wheel, animations, cinematics) taken together and once combined give the feeling of a lack of control or agency when BioWare tries to force character on the PC without player input. Even ME3 was pretty bad at this with Shep's forced PTSD nightmares and autodialogue. There is no way "my" Shepard would have done some of that.

The point I was more making though is that in spite of Shepard having VO, using dialogue wheels, and cutscenes, there doesn't appear to be any shortage of people that feel that the Shepard they play is "their Shepard." They have ownership over the character in their minds, and you're right that many didn't like the dreams and whatnot because of it.

To me, it seems more like the issue is the dream sequences in ME3, because had they existed even if Mass Effect let you play a more blank slate, silent protagonist, people would have had the same issues. But even though Shepard used a dialogue wheel, had full voice acting, and it was a cinematic game, many people still felt that Shepard was "theirs."

Obviously for some it will be a deal breaker (it comes up a lot here), but it seems for also a large group many don't seem to feel that these things are a significant barrier to Shepard being their own character.

I think you're right that player agency is the key. Do those that feel Shepard can be "theirs" have a different degree of granularity for what they require for agency? Picking decisions and quest paths on a high level may be sufficient, whereas a gesture or a facial expression is less of an issue for them? By the opposite account, someone such as yourself has a much finer granularity and the smaller details are still just as important (maybe more important)?

I think there are several factors that contribute to this.

First, the way Shepard was handled was that way from the beginning. So there weren't any other expectations, DAO and DA2 had two entirely different approaches to the protagonist, and the precedent set by DAO was what people wanted/expected in a sequel.

Second, in Mass Effect your decisions, until the end of ME3 actually mattered and made a difference in what happened. In DA2 except for one or two exceptions, all your decisions were window dressing to give you the illusion that what you do as a player matters. When it doesn't seem like what you do really matters, its harder to connect to the character. And again this is all a matter of perception too. There are plenty of games people get into and connect to the characters in that have even fewer decisions that matter if at all, but these games don't give the player the impression that their decisions will matter, so they know what they're getting into.

[Imrahil_]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But given BioWare's insistence on cinematic presentation and a voiced protagonist, at least in the short term, the only alternative to offering constructive suggestions to be pushed aside as someone who siomply won't like the game.

It's much easier for them to dismiss us if we don't even try to work within their constraints.

Sylvius, I admire your perseverence.  I agree with 99% of your points.  I just don't have it in me to keep protesting.  I gave up long, long ago.  I appaud you, & bEVEthsda, & Jimmy, & others who I should also mention, but it's just not going to happen.

They're going to make DA:2.2.

They've said as much.  We're not getting racial choices.  We're getting the dialogue wheel.  We're getting iconic companions.  We're getting a Voiced Protagonist.  We're getting moar cinematics.  We're getting auto-diologue.  We're getting less player-agency,  They're making a game they want to make, which tells the story they want to tell.  Not our story we get to adventure in.  It's. just. not. going. to. happen.

DA:2 failed, supplanting MOO3 as the goto meme for "and then they failed". SWTOR is a joke on every forum but their own.  ME3 is now the icon for bad endings that destroyed a franchise.  Dawn of the Seeker didn't crack the Top 30 the week it was released, selling less than "Chuck: The Complete Fifth Season" at 15,347.

But they insist the fans are wrong.  And they persist with their "artistic vision" excuse.

They're not going to turn it around. I am amazed & somewhat impressed by your persistence to tell them what they are doing wrong, but, honestly, all you're going to get out of it is the chance to bump 500+ threads where you're like "told you so" once DA2.2, errr, I mean DA3 is released.

Basically, I wanted to just applaud you for fiighting the good fight, because you deseve that, but also to tell you you've already lost.  They won't be making a good game.  They won't be making the game you want.

Keep going, & I applaud you.  Stop now, & I understand.

[AmstradHero]

Imrahil_, I tend to agree with you. It doesn't mean that I can't potentially enjoy the games that BioWare makes, but I do agree they're going in a direction that feels less like what I would like their games to be.

The problem is then finding games out there that do have the traits that many people are indicating that they would like. Voiced protagonists are becoming more common in mainstream games (or at least AAA titles), so it's hard to pull sales data or even general popularity for games which fit the bill that many people here are asking for... probably in no small part because no modern ones exist (at least that I'm aware of)

I mean, I'm working on a DA:O mod, The Shattered War, which I would say caters to these desires. I've put in countless hours of work to offer player agency, roleplaying choice, choice of action and resulting consequences, and am still doing lots more to make sure that it's a polished and substantial work. However, I doubt this will be even a blip on the radar for most gamers, and probably even RPG gamers, even the people on these forums.

I'd certainly play more games in the style of BG1/2 and NWN1/2 if they were released, even with no voice acting from any characters except as sound selections and the like. It's not a particularly innovative approach, though I fail to see how attempting to ape movies or the extraordinarily stagnant FPS genre are more innovative.

[GodWood]

Imrahil_ wrote...
Sylvius, I admire your perseverence.  I agree with 99% of your points.  I just don't have it in me to keep protesting.  I gave up long, long ago.  I appaud you, & bEVEthsda, & Jimmy, & others who I should also mention, but it's just not going to happen.

They're going to make DA:2.2.

They've said as much.  We're not getting racial choices.  We're getting the dialogue wheel.  We're getting iconic companions.  We're getting a Voiced Protagonist.  We're getting moar cinematics.  We're getting auto-diologue.  We're getting less player-agency,  They're making a game they want to make, which tells the story they want to tell.  Not our story we get to adventure in.  It's. just. not. going. to. happen.

DA:2 failed, supplanting MOO3 as the goto meme for "and then they failed". SWTOR is a joke on every forum but their own.  ME3 is now the icon for bad endings that destroyed a franchise.  Dawn of the Seeker didn't crack the Top 30 the week it was released, selling less than "Chuck: The Complete Fifth Season" at 15,347.

But they insist the fans are wrong.  And they persist with their "artistic vision" excuse.

They're not going to turn it around. I am amazed & somewhat impressed by your persistence to tell them what they are doing wrong, but, honestly, all you're going to get out of it is the chance to bump 500+ threads where you're like "told you so" once DA2.2, errr, I mean DA3 is released.

Basically, I wanted to just applaud you for fiighting the good fight, because you deseve that, but also to tell you you've already lost.  They won't be making a good game.  They won't be making the game you want.

Keep going, & I applaud you.  Stop now, & I understand.

It's sad, but it's true.

[Imrahil_]

AmstradHero wrote...
Voiced protagonists are becoming more common in mainstream games (or at least AAA titles), so it's hard to pull sales data or even general popularity for games which fit the bill that many people here are asking for...

Heh, yeah, if "modern" excludes DA:O (2009) & Skyrim (2011).  Oh what a wonderful world is 2012. 

Modifié par Imrahil_, 07 juillet 2012 - 03:41 .

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Obviously for some it will be a deal breaker (it comes up a lot here), but it seems for also a large group many don't seem to feel that these things are a significant barrier to Shepard being their own character.

I think with Shep, people are more ok with him/her because the ME games have had the whole cinematic presentation, dialogue wheel, paraphrases and so forth from the start. That's not the case with DA:O to DA2 and I think DA:O catered to a different audience than DA2 did. The audiences for something like DA:O is different than ME.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I think you're right that player agency is the key. Do those that feel Shepard can be "theirs" have a different degree of granularity for what they require for agency? Picking decisions and quest paths on a high level may be sufficient, whereas a gesture or a facial expression is less of an issue for them?

Again, I think its more to do with expectations and how the game/franchise establishes the "rules" of player agency and control over the player character from the start. ME does that pretty well starting in ME1 with Shep and how the player can control or not control them. Whereas DAO to DA2 is a drastic shift in how the player character is presented and what level of control the player has over the player character. And even if you're ok with VO, part of the problem with DA2 was how very few of the choices felt like they mattered what the player chose since everything ended up the same way anyway. And not even in a good "illusion of choice" sort of way.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
By the opposite account, someone such as yourself has a much finer granularity and the smaller details are still just as important (maybe more important)?

Again, I think it comes down to expectations and how they're established and staying consistent with that. For me, one thing I love with non voiced PC's is customizing race or background or their face. But with a voiced PC, I prefer it if you have a fixed look and a more defined identity, so long as the game subsequently can react to that. That's why I'm fine with Geralt in The Witcher or Thorton in AP or Lee in Telltale's The Walking Dead game. All of those guys are more fixed from the onset and that kind of sets the tone for me at least that those guys aren't "your" characters but you're simply controlling them for a little bit. The choices you make for them might well make them your versions of a character but you don't have the opportunity to RP them as much as you would somebody like the Warden in DAO or the Bhaalspawn.

But even with a fixed character you can have meaningful player agency. The Walking Dead games do this really well I think. Just a little moment like when you're surprise attacked by a zombie and you hit it in the head with a hammer, the game lets you keep smashing its head in until its a bloody mess, way past the point its no longer a threat. You can stop before that point and walk away, but if you're feeling the need for some catharsis, you can keep hammering away. Thats a nice little touch in what could otherwise be a cutscene but instead the player is kept in control.

I think with a voiced PC and more control given to animators in creating the cutscenes, the tradeoff then needs to be that the player is given more BIG decisions and chances to truly affect the narrative, like The Witcher 2 or Alpha Protocol. Or at least find ways to make the player feel more in control via more pointed and precise dialogue sequences, like Deus Ex: Human Revolution's dialogue battles.

DahliaLynn wrote...
 No surprises, or sudden  loss of control. (And personally, I didn't feel much of a need to see my own character very often in a conversation. My reaction was my own,  behind the screen)

Exactly- the groundrules of DA:O's style were evident from the start and stayed pretty consistent. You knew what to expect with the cutscenes and dialogue sequences. Any surprises came from how the NPC might react and overzealous camera movements and editing or your PC saying words you didn't want them to say in a tone you did not expect with body language you did not want.

DahliaLynn wrote...
When BioWare devs talk of future  implementation, they likely are talking about taking the same approach,  only adding the dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist as in DA2,  allowing us to see our character react emotively as well as verbally.  This would likely improve *Cutscene* flow, though takes away more of the player's personal point of view and perspective of the events around  him/her, which can change the psychology of how one sees "their"  character. Silent makes it more personal, leaves much room for  imagination and voiced makes it more third person and defined.

Right.  Although if BioWare really wants to make things flow much better with a voiced PC, they should really use timed dialogue like Alpha Protocol or The Walking Dead. That truly makes a huge difference I think.

DahliaLynn wrote...

It's probably tougher to figure out how an NPC should react to you if  there are a million ways you can voice a line, though again I still say  DA:O pulled it off very well. It could very well be that this took a  tremendous amount of resources to figure out how an NPC would react to  each line, I don't know. And, it's possible they would prefer to  concentrate those resources elsewhere.

To me, the enjoyment I mostly get out of RPGs is from how the NPCs react to my PC. I don't necessarily care or need to see/hear my PC saying things to somebody else, I just want to see/hear how the NPC reacts to my PC. That's one reason I don't care for voiced PCs as much, is that I'd rather those rescources go to making existing NPCs more interesting and reactive.

DahliaLynn wrote...
Since any 3D first /  third person game will be cinematic, there is no way BioWare can focus  *less" on cinematics. What they can do is decide *how* they are going to use those tools, where to concentrate those resources in order to make  it the best cinematic game they can make, (Cutscenes or not) and it  seems their decision has been made as far as the basics of conversations are concerned. If anything, it will probably be *easier* for them to  use the voiced protagonist, leaving room to devote resources to other  things, such as story, customization, etc. But I'm just theorizing

Thats true. Even something like Skyrim or Half Life 2 is cinematic to some extent. Yet both of those games keep the player in first person the whole time with no out of body cinematics ever in the game. Same with even something like Call of Duty, really. I think it would be great if BioWare did an unvoiced PC game where dialogue took place in a first person POV and allowed the NPCs more body language for the player to react to as well as giving the player some means to better display some body language in conversations.


I'd just like to see BioWare try and do something that leverages player agency above all else instead of just sticking with the same old same old dialogue wheel/paraphrases.

Modifié par Brockololly, 07 juillet 2012 - 06:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Imrahil_ wrote...

Sylvius, I admire your perseverence.  I agree with 99% of your points.  I just don't have it in me to keep protesting.  I gave up long, long ago.  I appaud you, & bEVEthsda, & Jimmy, & others who I should also mention, but it's just not going to happen.

They're going to make DA:2.2.

They've said as much.  We're not getting racial choices.  We're getting the dialogue wheel.  We're getting iconic companions.  We're getting a Voiced Protagonist.  We're getting moar cinematics.  We're getting auto-diologue.  We're getting less player-agency,  They're making a game they want to make, which tells the story they want to tell.  Not our story we get to adventure in.  It's. just. not. going. to. happen.

DA:2 failed, supplanting MOO3 as the goto meme for "and then they failed". SWTOR is a joke on every forum but their own.  ME3 is now the icon for bad endings that destroyed a franchise.  Dawn of the Seeker didn't crack the Top 30 the week it was released, selling less than "Chuck: The Complete Fifth Season" at 15,347.

But they insist the fans are wrong.  And they persist with their "artistic vision" excuse.

They're not going to turn it around. I am amazed & somewhat impressed by your persistence to tell them what they are doing wrong, but, honestly, all you're going to get out of it is the chance to bump 500+ threads where you're like "told you so" once DA2.2, errr, I mean DA3 is released.

Basically, I wanted to just applaud you for fiighting the good fight, because you deseve that, but also to tell you you've already lost.  They won't be making a good game.  They won't be making the game you want.

Keep going, & I applaud you.  Stop now, & I understand.

As long as I'm right, I've already won.

I can't control what sort of game they make.  And I can't control how whatever game they do make will be generally perceived.  But I can control whether an accurate perception of that game is made available for people to see.

[AmstradHero]

Imrahil_ wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Voiced protagonists are becoming more common in mainstream games (or at least AAA titles), so it's hard to pull sales data or even general popularity for games which fit the bill that many people here are asking for...

Heh, yeah, if "modern" excludes DA:O (2009) & Skyrim (2011).  Oh what a wonderful world is 2012. 

Fair call.

However, Skyrim is roleplaying game about a setting, not a story, and I'd say that's fairly true for all TES games. Morrowind had fairly long and involved main plot, but in terms of actual choices and roleplaying, I've never found the Elder Scrolls that compelling. I still love them and find them really enjoyable, but they're most definitely not the same experience.

Besides, obviously DA:O didn't provide sufficient payback to get that style of game continued.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 07 juillet 2012 - 06:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The second obstacle to this logic is that Shepherd is a very set character and that is accepted from the start.

I never accepted that.  And I found ME's paraphrases to be generally less frustrating that DA2's paraphrases.  I did find ManShep's voice to be an grossly inappropriate, but that's always going to be a risk with any PC voice.

Shepherd is a soldier in the Alliance, the first human Spectre, features that define his past, his background, his mindset and his experience. The spice of gender, 'class' (all different types of soldiers) and his background (only a factor in ME1) are all tiny in comparison to who Shepherd is.

I didn't find that to be true at all.  I also didn't find many opportunities to make meaningful decisions in ME, but the game didn't generally tell me what Shepard thought or how he felt.

For example:

He is a commanding officer, his crew was familiar with him and he has experience giving orders. He's got a close relationship with his CO, Anderson.

On this Anderson point, certainly Anderson thinks they have a close relationship, but I found no requirement that Shepard hold that same opinion.

While my distate for action combat and the wheel+paraphrase is well known, I found that ME's wheel+paraphrase was the best wheel+paraphrase BioWare has yet done, and I continue to deny that ME has action combat.  The abilitiy to aim while paused combined with stat-driven accuracy gave ME a sort of analog VATS.  I liked ME's combat system.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

Fair call.

However, Skyrim is roleplaying game about a setting, not a story, and I'd say that's fairly true for all TES games.

False dichotomy.  The story to which you refer is itself part of the setting.  TES and DA simply use different means to flesh out their settings - and not even very different: DA's "story" and TES's exploration are both discoverable content.  Both games allow the player to learn about the setting through his character's choices, either by finding locations (TES) or by finding events (DA).

The only story that matters as narrative in a roleplaying game is the story created by the player through his character's decisions.  The game merely provides the setting for that story, and both Bethesda and BioWare games have traditionally offered up terrific settings for that.

Besides, obviously DA:O didn't provide sufficient payback to get that style of game continued.

Or, alternately, EA's internal greenlighting system is biased agaist games their marketing department doesn't understand.

There are more reasons that just profitability why a game doesn't get made - not good reasons, but reasons.

[AmstradHero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Fair call.

However, Skyrim is roleplaying game about a setting, not a story, and I'd say that's fairly true for all TES games.

False dichotomy.  The story to which you refer is itself part of the setting.  TES and DA simply use different means to flesh out their settings - and not even very different: DA's "story" and TES's exploration are both discoverable content.  Both games allow the player to learn about the setting through his character's choices, either by finding locations (TES) or by finding events (DA).

The only story that matters as narrative in a roleplaying game is the story created by the player through his character's decisions.  The game merely provides the setting for that story, and both Bethesda and BioWare games have traditionally offered up terrific settings for that.

I disagree, or to be more accurate, I dispute your definition of "story". Or perhaps I should have been more specific and referred to it as "narrative"?

The experience offered by those two games are vastly different because of the focus.  Ultimately the game revolves around the character's "story" so to speak - ie if one were to recount a tale of their exploits in a narrative or a D&D setting, it could be done in a similar way, but the gameplay context by which it is done is vastly different.  This is an important distinction in terms of game design. It may not be important to you in terms of your roleplaying experience, but it is very important from a designer's perspective, and I'd contend the majority of players as well.

A game of DA:O's style revolves around a main narrative that is the core experience of the player's journey. It is the quality of this narrative and the player's involvement within it that is typically used by players to judge the quality of the game. It is this main narrative that ultimately defines the game and the player. The setting is a vehicle and backdrop against which this narrative is delivered, but the setting is not the focus.

A game like Skyrim is predicated on exploration. Certainly, the game has a main narrative, but it is not the driving force of the game. The main narrative it typically just a larger and longer version of one of the many threads of narrative that allow the player to explore and understand the setting. The player can "progress" while paying very little attention to the main narrative, because it is the exploration of the setting that is key.

People are far more likely to talk about some random occurrence or event that happened while they were exploring in Skyrim (or equivalent) than DA:O (or equivalent) because it is those unscripted events that occur as a confluence of timing, AI, and player actions that provide unique experiences for a player.

In Skyrim, exploration provides the narrative, whereas in DA:O the narrative provides exploration. In short, setting is not narrative. Both DA:O and Skyrim are enjoyable games, but are vastly different in terms of designer and player focus.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 07 juillet 2012 - 07:26 .

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
You don't have full control over a silent PC either. You can still only pick from the choices on offer, even if you know what those choices will be in advance.

I don't think that is much of a problem. Sure, there were moments, when I was new to this, back in BG, when it happened that I reacted over the available dialogue choices, not happy with any. But it really hasn't been much of a problem. And, certainly, other forumites who play in the same style as I - defining the protagonist, rather than exploring - I've never seen them complain either.

Seeing the full dialogue lines (which we won't either) gives us time to consider. That time and consideration helps making one of the lines ours, our protagonist's. Before speaking it. I think that might be very important. You spend time with the line, before committing to it.

Right now, we're working on the assumption that a voiced protagonist don't need to be a problem either, basically because Bioware have already made that choice.
I believe Bioware may have made themselves a big disfavor, when they intentionally used the dialogue wheel and VP to surprise the player, in DA2. We'll see how it works out in DA3, when their design imperative will be different.

Whether it's silent or voiced it wholly comes down to how in sync your idea of the character is with the options presented by the writers.

Voiced has the advantage on screen, rather than in your head. I believe this is why Bioware are adopting it. As more of the current RPG potential audience don't play PnP but do play games where character building is a part of the game.

Likewise cinematics and cutscenes are much better story telling tools when the character is fixed.

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sure, but Shepard is Shepard. The Warden or Bhaalspawn could be any number of races or backgrounds. The Warden can be a Cousland, Aeducan, Amell and so forth. With Shepard or Hawke you're just creating a slightly different version of a fixed character.

As for people feeling BioWare owns a character like Hawke as opposed to the player, I think its not necessarily symptomatic of some other feature but more all of those features (voice acting, dialogue wheel, animations, cinematics) taken together and once combined give the feeling of a lack of control or agency when BioWare tries to force character on the PC without player input. Even ME3 was pretty bad at this with Shep's forced PTSD nightmares and autodialogue. There is no way "my" Shepard would have done some of that.

The point I was more making though is that in spite of Shepard having VO, using dialogue wheels, and cutscenes, there doesn't appear to be any shortage of people that feel that the Shepard they play is "their Shepard." They have ownership over the character in their minds, and you're right that many didn't like the dreams and whatnot because of it.

To me, it seems more like the issue is the dream sequences in ME3, because had they existed even if Mass Effect let you play a more blank slate, silent protagonist, people would have had the same issues. But even though Shepard used a dialogue wheel, had full voice acting, and it was a cinematic game, many people still felt that Shepard was "theirs."

Obviously for some it will be a deal breaker (it comes up a lot here), but it seems for also a large group many don't seem to feel that these things are a significant barrier to Shepard being their own character.

I think you're right that player agency is the key. Do those that feel Shepard can be "theirs" have a different degree of granularity for what they require for agency? Picking decisions and quest paths on a high level may be sufficient, whereas a gesture or a facial expression is less of an issue for them? By the opposite account, someone such as yourself has a much finer granularity and the smaller details are still just as important (maybe more important)?

People would rather be Shepard than Hawke. Hawke was a boring character in a boring story. Shepard was an epic hero in an epic story. When you have an epic tale, it's much easier to not "sweat the small stuff". It's exactly the same with DO:A voiced or not, it works out the same. You can only do what the writers let you do via the options presented.

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...

You're confusing "freedom" with "control". I may not get to do anything I want, but with a silent PC, the PC does what I command.

Only within the parameters set.

This is the problem with having multiple things leading to the same result.

1. I go out of my front door - you step in a dog turd
2. I climb out of my window - you step in a dog turd.
3. I go out of the patio doors - you step in a dog turd .

[ElitePinecone]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
But even though Shepard used a dialogue wheel, had full voice acting, and it was a cinematic game, many people still felt that Shepard was "theirs."

Shepard, at least in the first game, also had different options for service history (war hero, sole survivor, ruthless butcher) and upbringing (Earth gangs, privileged spacer, colonist), and even though these were rarely mentioned they *did* give players a certain measure of roleplaying variety that Hawke simply didn't have. When they were mentioned (a unique mission branch in Mass Effect, and some emails/dialogue changes in later games) it did give the sense that the particular Alliance soldier we were playing was different to many others, in terms of background, morals or psychology.

It was enough that many fans on the BSN could speak of "their" Shepard hating batarians because of the colonist origin events, while a significant criticism of Shepard's autodialogue about Earth in ME3 (which I share) is that for two out of the three background choices Earth was never their home. Even though the tangible, game-content consequences of the origin way back in Mass Effect don't amount to much, if anything, the fact that those options exist does give - I'd suggest - players more ways to shape the character's worldview and a more distinct 'personality' within the confines of what the developers offer. 

Hawke never really has this sense of customisability beyond the conversation tones. S/he's always a refugee fleeing Lothering, with two slight variations on upbringing that reflect the player's class choice, but these aren't really radically different enough to allow for player identification with the character. 

It's probably also worth noting that ME1 gave players many opportunities to state Shepard's opinion on 'things' (the galaxy, aliens, space exploration, Ashley's religious beliefs), which I never really came across in DA2, even though it successfully used the Mass Effect dialogue wheel. DAO seemed to offer many more chances to shape the Warden's worldview even if two or three dialogue choices had the same ultimate effect. 

[Uccio]

Imrahil_ wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But given BioWare's insistence on cinematic presentation and a voiced protagonist, at least in the short term, the only alternative to offering constructive suggestions to be pushed aside as someone who siomply won't like the game.

It's much easier for them to dismiss us if we don't even try to work within their constraints.

Sylvius, I admire your perseverence.  I agree with 99% of your points.  I just don't have it in me to keep protesting.  I gave up long, long ago.  I appaud you, & bEVEthsda, & Jimmy, & others who I should also mention, but it's just not going to happen.

They're going to make DA:2.2.

....

Keep going, & I applaud you.  Stop now, & I understand.

x 2, I  myself just show my opinion vith my wallet. I just wait and see and if what I see is not what I wanted then I will just not simply buy it. Just like I did with ME3.

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
You don't have full control over a silent PC either. You can still only pick from the choices on offer, even if you know what those choices will be in advance.

I don't think that is much of a problem. Sure, there were moments, when I was new to this, back in BG, when it happened that I reacted over the available dialogue choices, not happy with any. But it really hasn't been much of a problem. And, certainly, other forumites who play in the same style as I - defining the protagonist, rather than exploring - I've never seen them complain either.

Seeing the full dialogue lines (which we won't either) gives us time to consider. That time and consideration helps making one of the lines ours, our protagonist's. Before speaking it. I think that might be very important. You spend time with the line, before committing to it.

Right now, we're working on the assumption that a voiced protagonist don't need to be a problem either, basically because Bioware have already made that choice.
I believe Bioware may have made themselves a big disfavor, when they intentionally used the dialogue wheel and VP to surprise the player, in DA2. We'll see how it works out in DA3, when their design imperative will be different.

Whether it's silent or voiced it wholly comes down to how in sync your idea of the character is with the options presented by the writers. 

Of course. That's what I'm saying. But it works two ways. The player's idea catching up to sync, which is what the full lines offer us. The writers job is quite a bit more difficult, but narrower depictions of the responses aren't helping.

Voiced has the advantage on screen, rather than in your head. I believe this is why Bioware are adopting it. As more of the current RPG potential audience don't play PnP but do play games where character building is a part of the game.

But there's still absolutely no evidence of that this approach has any success on the market. On the contrary, and across the board.

Likewise cinematics and cutscenes are much better story telling tools when the character is fixed.

A full movie is an even better "story telling" device. The DA anime tanked. Besides, the mission is to provide a game. The story is supposed to be just a feature of the game. 

[bEVEsthda]

AmstradHero wrote...
In Skyrim, exploration provides the narrative, whereas in DA:O the narrative provides exploration. In short, setting is not narrative. Both DA:O and Skyrim are enjoyable games, but are vastly different in terms of designer and player focus.

I don't know why "exploration" has become such a fix word for discussions about TES ot Skyrim.

I would phrase it that actions provide the narrative in TES. The big kick of Bethesda's sandbox games is the freedom. Not the exploration. And I also think you're wrong about how the narrative is provided. There is no difference. In the TES games the 'narrative' gets hold of you from the beginning, and then guides, "provides" the exploration. Just like you claimed for DA:O.

No, the difference is the freedom. The total customization not only of your character, but also of your actions. You don't have to go where the narrative points you. At least not "now".

And that by it's general design, a sandbox can support gameplay variations which aren't explicitly wired in, or even ever considered by the makers. And this last, is what I'd like even more of from Bethesda. Make a more complete simulation of the world and characters. And it becomes free story content. The developers need only provide the sandbox-engines, the players take care of the rest themselves.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 07 juillet 2012 - 10:44 .

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...
This is the problem with having multiple things leading to the same result.

1. I go out of my front door - you step in a dog turd
2. I climb out of my window - you step in a dog turd.
3. I go out of the patio doors - you step in a dog turd .

Which is how DA2 in a remarkably obvious way handled "choices".

[bEVEsthda]

AmstradHero wrote...
Besides, obviously DA:O didn't provide sufficient payback to get that style of game continued.

That's not obvious at all.

DA:O has provided all the payback they have received from DA. They could as well have saved themselves all the development work on DA2 and just released an empty disc.

And from what I understand developers have slipped, it would have been cheaper to make another DA:O style game, than it was to make DA2.

What is obvious is that DA2 has for now completely killed the franchise (= zero payback), and DA3 has to accomplish a little miracle to get it going again.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 07 juillet 2012 - 10:58 .

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
This is the problem with having multiple things leading to the same result.

1. I go out of my front door - you step in a dog turd
2. I climb out of my window - you step in a dog turd.
3. I go out of the patio doors - you step in a dog turd .

Which is how DA2 in a remarkably obvious way handled "choices".

Which is why I want to shift away from 3 ways to do the same thing to real choice like Witcher2. Even if it means sacrificing character creation. As it's been demonstrated by both sides of the arguement character creation and cinematics do not work well together.

[Il Divo]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Which is why I want to shift away from 3 ways to do the same thing to real choice like Witcher2. Even if it means sacrificing character creation.

Agreed.

[AmstradHero]

bEVEsthda wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
In Skyrim, exploration provides the narrative, whereas in DA:O the narrative provides exploration. In short, setting is not narrative. Both DA:O and Skyrim are enjoyable games, but are vastly different in terms of designer and player focus.

I don't know why "exploration" has become such a fix word for discussions about TES ot Skyrim.

I would phrase it that actions provide the narrative in TES. The big kick of Bethesda's sandbox games is the freedom. Not the exploration. And I also think you're wrong about how the narrative is provided. There is no difference. In the TES games the 'narrative' gets hold of you from the beginning, and then guides, "provides" the exploration. Just like you claimed for DA:O.

No, the difference is the freedom. The total customization not only of your character, but also of your actions. You don't have to go where the narrative points you. At least not "now".

And that by it's general design, a sandbox can support gameplay variations which aren't explicitly wired in, or even ever considered by the makers. And this last, is what I'd like even more of from Bethesda. Make a more complete simulation of the world and characters. And it becomes free story content. The developers need only provide the sandbox-engines, the players take care of the rest themselves.

I didn't know "exploration" had become a fix word for discussions about TES. I've always considered that to be the highlight of the series since Morrowind. Morrowind has probably had the best main narrative of the Bethesda games I've played, but by and large, the writing is fairly lacklustre and expository rather than providing real characterisation.

I understand where you're coming from, but again, I disagree. In TES games, you can simply wander around and things will happen. You'll encounter things, see random events, come across bizarre encounters. In DA:O, the game is entirely narrative driven. Nothing happens in DA:O without a quest driving the NPCs or the characters. Fast travel can frequently make Skyrim boring, whereas fast travel in DA:O is a necessity to facilitate the narrative.

In addition, the focus for TES games is on the setting, which tends to be a fairly static backdrop and unchanging in response to the player's actions. The bulk of the world continues just as it was without the player's intervention in a TES game, and continues to do so. One house might rise to power in Morrowind, the Imperial City might be besieged in Oblivion, and you might set the Stormcloaks in power in Skyrim. However, the setting largely remains unchanged by these events. Everyone goes about their business pretty just as they did before. There's no real consequence as a result of player actions, because by necessity, the player still has to be able to explore the setting no matter their choices. It's a matter of scope - providing consequences in an open setting would be untenable in terms of possibilities.

Narrative driven games, on the other hand, have a greater potential to offer ongoing and significant changes as a result of decisions. They don't always succeed, but they are better placed to do it. They can also focus better on the delivery of their narrative, because it's being dictated (to some degree) how the player will experience it.

The trick here is the balance between player freedom and pre-determined story and consequence, because given limited resources, one or the other is going to have to be sacrificed. On one end, we have TES, which allows for freedom but delivers little in the way of consequences. Something like Alpha Protocol shackles the player's freedom significantly in comparison, but provides a lot of consequences based on the player's choices. DA:O probably falls somewhere in the middle.

Of course, DA2 doesn't play by this scale. It sacrifices both freedom and consequence in order to deliver a specific set story to force specific setting changes that the writers wanted to enforce on their creation. That's their perogative, but it hamstrings meaningful roleplaying in order to deliver that set story.

bEVEsthda wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Besides, obviously DA:O didn't provide sufficient payback to get that style of game continued.

That's not obvious at all.

DA:O has provided all the payback they have received from DA. They could as well have saved themselves all the development work on DA2 and just released an empty disc.

If it did provide sufficient payback, then it would logically follow that they should have made another game like DAO, not DA2. They didn't, hence someone obviously thought the payback wasn't sufficient. That's all I'm saying here.

BobSmith101 wrote...
Which is why I want to shift away from 3 ways to do the same thing to real choice like Witcher2. Even if it means sacrificing character creation.

Only if it's done right. I don't like sacrificing character creation, particularly if I'm saddled with a particular personality. That is the single thing I detest about The Witcher. I don't want to play Geralt. I don't like his character and I don't want him telling me his reasons for the decision that I am making. You can give me a set character, but don't give me a predefined character.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 07 juillet 2012 - 02:41 .

[AkiKishi]

AmstradHero wrote...
Only if it's done right. I don't like sacrificing character creation, particularly if I'm saddled with a particular personality. That is the single thing I detest about The Witcher. I don't want to play Geralt. I don't like his character and I don't want him telling me his reasons for the decision that I am making. You can give me a set character, but don't give me a predefined character.

There is no other straight forward solution. If you want multiple personalities that is three ways of saying the same thing.
With any pre-defined character there is always a chance someone won't like them. But that turned out to be the case with Hawke and Shepard too.