280 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

Voice acting is the direction bioware have taken their games. While we're here discussing how they can make them better, a subset of the forum population is intent on just repeating the same arguments about why VO should be removed.

We want to be able to play our own characters.  So far, the voice is a hindrance to that.

If we can find a way to make the voice work with a deep roleplaying playstyle, that would be great.  But until we find that, I'm going to call for the voice to be optional.

And yes, I know they've said they're not going to make the voice optional in the next game.  I don't care.  It's still a good idea, and I'll keep it in the public eye until we either get an optional voice, or until the voice improves sufficiently that it is compatible with deep roleplaying.

My goal isn't to kill the voice.  My goal is to ensure these games support this specific traditional playstyle.

They are valid arguments, but not in discussions on the future of dragon age.

Not the immediate future, perhaps.  Anything beyond that is merely guessing.

They've completely changed the franchise once.  They could do it again.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 août 2012 - 01:09 .

[bEVEsthda]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

We want to be able to play our own characters.  So far, the voice is a hindrance to that.

If we can find a way to make the voice work with a deep roleplaying playstyle, that would be great.  But until we find that, I'm going to call for the voice to be optional.

And yes, I know they've said they're not going to make the voice optional in the next game.  I don't care.  It's still a good idea, and I'll keep it in the public eye until we either get an optional voice, or until the voice improves sufficiently that it is compatible with deep roleplaying.

My goal isn't to kill the voice.  My goal is to ensure these games support this specific traditional playstyle.

One thing that could be done, is to allow us to model/create our voice. It's possible to actively process/filter a voice with software to make it sound pretty much like anything.

With this, at least we wouldn't get a voice that we feel is fundamentally alien to our character, or even repulsive.
But voice still carries inflections which makes a spoken line less ambiguous than a written. However, any RPG will never be perfect. We always have tolerable flaws we have to work around. Nothing new. And as long as it's not broken...

Otherwise, my feelings are going into the direction of ditching compromises, like optional voice (not that we'll get even that). Force the players to play the game "right". Voiceless protagonist. It's the best choice.


I do understand that such discussion here, regarding the immediate future of DA, is not constructive. But maybe we should start lift our perspective beyond, jump a generation, discussing DA4 instead.

[Cimeas]

Won't it sound awkwardly 'modulated' (?) like those pop songs where they edit the singers voice and It sounds sort of like a droid

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

PinkDiamondstl wrote...

I hope and pray that they never bring back the unvoiced protagonist.

Not even as an option?  Why would you oppose that?

That's a bad compromise imo. All we'd get is a mute protagonist with the same three flavours of personality, which is no different than switching off voice-acting.

Switching off voice-acting would be a massive win.  The fixed voice and delivery of each line badly harms the game - turning the voice off solves both of those.

No, it wouldn't be as good as having a game designed for a silent protagonist, but it would be better than what we get now.

The problem is that you'd still be limited to a few select personalities and have the PC do involuntary things the player may not choose. The voice acting for me isn't so much a problem as is the focus of the entire element of 'cinematic delivery' and the limitation on roleplaying it seems to bring. In general, the more personality they forcefully try to infuse in the player character, the less it remains as my own, and voice acting isn't really necessary for that.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 26 août 2012 - 12:02 .

[bEVEsthda]

Cimeas wrote...

Won't it sound awkwardly 'modulated' (?) like those pop songs where they edit the singers voice and It sounds sort of like a droid

I don't know. I have no firsthand experience.
Nor do I know anything about possible patents etc.
I admit that this might not be truly feasible.

[Fast Jimmy]

To Cimeas' question, it has the potential, but honestly it's hardly eve THAT bad. Pop songs purposefully distort voices to the point of noticeability to create those effects, running such programs normally makes the singer sound more on key without affecting the quality of the voice.

The problem is accent. If Hawke is going to have a British accent, then all recorded lines wi sound British, regardless of the modulation done to make that voice more gravelly, deeper, high-pitched or smooth. And being able to change the voice still won't solve any of the RP problems I have with the paraphrasing system and the pigeon holed Diplomatic/Snarky/Aggressvoe responses.

In the scene in DA:O where you are going through the Gauntlet and the spirits of Andraste's past ask you riddles or revert into Ash Wraiths... how would the right or wrong answer be reflected in the dialogue wheel? Is the right answer always diplomatic? That seems hardly worth asking a riddle for, if that's the case.

That is the chief problem with the voiced PC - its not HOW I answer the question (dip/snar/aggro) it's the CONTENT I answer the question with. I could play as a stoic character, answering the questions with reverence. I could answer the questions with a trite sense of dismissal, as if all of these spiritus were just Fade constructs, testing me with simple riddles as demons bound to a duty, not holy impersonations of famous people.

The point is - DA:O and other silent PC games let me choose the ANSWER I wanted, and then let me fill in the tone on my own. Until there are two wheels, where I can choose my answer on one and nearly every range of emotion or tone possible on the other, being silent is vastly better.

[Milan92]

I personally prefer a voice protagonist. It adds more immersion and besides, the game industry has changed. This isn't the old Baldur Gate era anymore with silent protagonists.

[Milan92]

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

@Milan: How does it add more immersion when hearing your character word his/her answer totally not the way you'd imagined it? I'd rather get a list of possible answers like in DA:O. Also, there's nothing wrong with the Baldur's Gate games. At least those contained good writing and interesting dialogues.

The character feels more alive that way. The problem I had with DA: Origins was that even during sad scenes my warden still had that same emo expresion that he has during a happy scene. His face stays the same no matter what. I find it hard to take a character serious then.

[Brodoteau]

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

@Milan: How does it add more immersion when hearing your character word his/her answer totally not the way you'd imagined it? I'd rather get a list of possible answers like in DA:O. Also, there's nothing wrong with the Baldur's Gate games. At least those contained good writing and interesting dialogues.

I see this comment a lot on these fourms. Yes, the paraphrasing isn't perfect, but it doesn't have to be.  Even in a game like BG or PS:T you still didn't craft the words of your answer.  You still chose the one response you thought best represented your character.  That's the same thing that DA2 does.  But in DA2 you are not just picking text as much as you are picking a personality.  The idea "My Hawke wouldn't say that" must be tempered with the idea that perhaps you have chose the aggressive/angry personality, so of course he sounds like a roided up jerk.  Even with auto-dialogue which I agree must be used sparingly, the words said at the point are a reflection of the personality you wanted.  Is it frustrating that a Sarcastic Hawke can't make peace with the elves and (former) werewolf on the Wounded Coast.  Yes.  But then again, I've chosen for him to be insensitive, so why am I surprised?     

The Baldur's Gate games are still my all-time favourites.  But... that is not to say that their greatness is attributable to the silent protagonist.  You can have good writing and interesting dialogues with voice acting.

Modifié par Brodoteau, 26 août 2012 - 01:38 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Ultimately, that's one of the differences between "your character" and "BioWare's character". While the dialog and the choices are pre-determined, the mindset you carry into the game is that the character responds as a result of your input, not that you respond as a result of the character's input.

In the case of it being more "immersive", that's really subjective, because for someone who is expecting the character to react only when prompted, having the PC show off uncanny valley-esque emotions is "immersion breaking".

As "immersion breaking" as when someone who comes into the game with a different mindset sees that the character is not acting of their own will in a natural manner.

It's a matter of perspective and what you expect from the game.

Personally, I think BioWare's run it's course with roleplaying as a means of capturing the imagination of gamers. "Roleplaying" as a means of directing story outcomes through cinematics seems to be what they want to do now. I just hope that BioWare don't conflate the two.

Having an awkward in-between of a player created protagonist and a defined one ends up pissing off gamers because there wasn't enough control, or that it was too shallow to be a realistic portrayal of a character.

Still, I can't help but feel that BioWare would be better off if they jettisoned the RPG genre behind.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 26 août 2012 - 01:42 .

[eroeru]

CrustyBot wrote...


Having an awkward in-between of a player created protagonist and a defined one ends up pissing off gamers because there wasn't enough control, or that it was too shallow to be a realistic portrayal of a character.

Exactly so! 

[Jerrybnsn]

Milan92 wrote...

.............. a voice protagonist. It adds more immersion and besides, the game industry has changed. This isn't the old Baldur Gate era anymore with silent protagonists.

Not true.  Many games that just have been released, or are soon to be released, use silent protagonists.  A sp serves a specific purpose in gaming that a vo can't do.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 26 août 2012 - 02:03 .

[bleetman]

Brodoteau wrote...

I see this comment a lot on these fourms. Yes, the paraphrasing isn't perfect, but it doesn't have to be.  Even in a game like BG or PS:T you still didn't craft the words of your answer.  You still chose the one response you thought best represented your character.  That's the same thing that DA2 does.  But in DA2 you are not just picking text as much as you are picking a personality.  The idea "My Hawke wouldn't say that" must be tempered with the idea that perhaps you have chose the aggressive/angry personality, so of course he sounds like a roided up jerk.  Even with auto-dialogue which I agree must be used sparingly, the words said at the point are a reflection of the personality you wanted.  Is it frustrating that a Sarcastic Hawke can't make peace with the elves and (former) werewolf on the Wounded Coast.  Yes.  But then again, I've chosen for him to be insensitive, so why am I surprised?

Well yes, but the issue with the 'personality wheel' and vague, occasionally misleading dialogue paraphrasing is that it encourages exactly what you just described: picking responses because you're playing one of the three personality options.

Why is this a problem? Because it makes roleplaying defunct. You aren't picking responses based on what you think best fits the character you'd made up under the circumstances. You just pick whichever one is your choice of personality this time around, leading to a protaganist that is entirely one dimensional and constantly bland. Your Hawke is diplomatic/friendly, or funny, or aggresive, and that's effectively it.

Not that you're literally forced to pick the same thing every time. You can mix and match if you really want to, which is what I generally did. But this is where the auto dialogue and vague descriptions become a problem, because of the difficulty in predicting how Hawke will respond based on the brief summary provided. Half the time I'd push the 'forceful' option expecting Hawke to be, well, forceful, and instead unleash the Incredible Hawlke, completely contrary to what I was wanting to do. And as far as the auto-dialogue goes, yes, it makes use of your most dominant personality trait when picking your responses, but that onyl actually works if you're consistently picking the same type of response near every single time. It doesn't, say, track what kind of responses you tend to give to Templars when given the option. Or mages. Or underworld thugs. Or hightown nobles. Or even your various companions on an individual level, because lord knows I never treated Merrill the same way I treated Isabela or Anders, yet whenever the game decided to start up with the auto-dialogue, it cracked jokes at all three. That's just bad design. I shouldn't have to console cheat my personality to be something else just to have my Hawke not behave irregularly during Merrill's romance scene, or likewise artificially set my personality to aggressive if I want to actually play an anti-qunari character or muder knife some slavers. Especially when that particular issue could go away entirely by just having a proper conversation wheel choice during those moments.

Modifié par bleetman, 26 août 2012 - 02:22 .

[Cultist]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Cultist wrote...

OP do you realize how stupid your request sounds?

The more successful rpgs in the gaming industry have had silent protagonists.  They make role playing more immersive and is a very valid arguement.  Which makes you wonder why Bioware would sacrifice this and sales just for a more cinematic experience. 

Thank you, Captain obvious, but I was talking about thread name and phrasing of it.

[bleetman]

Not really. Picking through a selection of available responses doesn't make it Bioware's character. They just give me the options, and leave me to decide which one fits the character I've created to fill their protaganist's boots. In the case of, say, the DA:O Warden, they created the general character outline (as in, that they're a grey warden and for whatever reason they want to stop the blight) but left everything else up to the player to decide, giving them the means to express that character through a wide range of actions and responses. It'll never truely be completely our character - we're going to be required to work it around what rules the game sets out, the case in DA:O being that they don't just run from the blight and let it engulf Ferelden - but any good rpg will give the player enough leeway that they can largely generate their own and play through the game as them without being repeatedly told what they do or do not think.

I'd happily regard my Wardens as 'my' characters in that regard. Bioware may've designed the methods I have to do so, but ultimately gave me the ability to decide what made them tick.

Modifié par bleetman, 26 août 2012 - 02:39 .

[Mr Fixit]

Milan92 wrote...

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

@Milan: How does it add more immersion when hearing your character word his/her answer totally not the way you'd imagined it? I'd rather get a list of possible answers like in DA:O. Also, there's nothing wrong with the Baldur's Gate games. At least those contained good writing and interesting dialogues.

The character feels more alive that way. The problem I had with DA: Origins was that even during sad scenes my warden still had that same emo expresion that he has during a happy scene. His face stays the same no matter what. I find it hard to take a character serious then.

The solution to that problem would be not to show protagonist's face at all. After all, we don't look at ourselves while we speak. Unless we're in front of mirror, I guess.

I hate it when game forces upon my character how he should feel. Perhaps my Hawke/Shepard isn't sad. Pehaps he hates his sibling with a vengeance and is delighted when ogre beats him/her to a pulp.

[Fast Jimmy]

In line with some of the most recent comments, the problem I have with the dialogue wheel, both in ME and DA2, is that it encourages playing a personality type, which, in reality, makes zero sense.

I as a person act in a variety of different manners for a variety of different reasons. I can be snarky (as many of you have seen), I can be aggressive and blunt and I can be extremely diplomatic and objective. The reason I act differently is context. Context of what is happening and who I am dealing with.

If I play as a pro-Mage Hawke, why would it make sense that I play as diplomatic or aggressive to both? I would usually be friendly to one group, antagonistic to the other. But the wheel rewards the exact opposite type of behavior - the mechanic predisposes players to have a 'snarky' Hawke playthrough, or a renegade Shepherd. Labeling choices as clearly black or white is a poor venue for role playing. It results in either A) playing a preset character, with the choice of what type of set personality or having a schizophrenic type of character, that is yelling in an aggressive voice 'thank you for this wonderful tea!!!' or saying in a snarky voice 'I'm sorry for the death of your loved one.'

When people look at the choices in DA:O, they are seen as choices, not as personality types. Having the Anvil of the Void decision reduced to 'Paragon/Renegade' would devalue the choice, even though that is perhaps one of the most clear examples of what the Paragon/Renegade mechanic tried to accomplish (the only comparable decisions in ME would probably be the Rachni Queen, the Council/Ascension saving and the Collector Base, all of which were reduced to nothing of importance).

The lack of real moral ambiguity in making decisions in DA:O made it that much more intriguing. The addition of the symbols in DA2 gave away the exact nature of what each response would result in - I would know what option would trigger a fight, I knew which option would be the 'auto-win' and which option would cost me money, or make me money. It resulted in absolutely no need to understand what my character would say, since I could simply choose the outcome.

Choosing an OUTCOME versus choosing a DIALOGUE is VASTLY different. Granted, every piece of dialogue has an intended purpose, but eliminating the risk of saying the wrong thing means I am not role playing my character, but am simply meta-gaming, clicking the outcomes I desire, not the words I want my character to say.

THAT is the problem with the change in dialogue between DA:O and DA2. And that is why so many people react so strongly against it.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 août 2012 - 03:14 .

[PhillyB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In line with some of the most recent comments, the problem I have with the dialogue wheel, both in ME and DA2, is that it encourages playing a personality type, which, in reality, makes zero sense.

I as a person act in a variety of different manners for a variety of different reasons. I can be snarky (as many of you have seen), I can be aggressive and blunt and I can be extremely diplomatic and objective. The reason I act differently is context. Context of what is happening and who I am dealing with.

If I play as a pro-Mage Hawke, why would it make sense that I play as diplomatic or aggressive to both? I would usually be friendly to one group, antagonistic to the other. But the wheel rewards the exact opposite type of behavior - the mechanic predisposes players to have a 'snarky' Hawke playthrough, or a renegade Shepherd. Labeling choices as clearly black or white is a poor venue for role playing. It results in either A) playing a preset character, with the choice of what type of set personality or having a schizophrenic type of character, that is yelling in an aggressive voice 'thank you for this wonderful tea!!!' or saying in a snarky voice 'I'm sorry for the death of your loved one.'

When people look at the choices in DA:O, they are seen as choices, not as personality types. Having the Anvil of the Void decision reduced to 'Paragon/Renegade' would devalue the choice, even though that is perhaps one of the most clear examples of what the Paragon/Renegade mechanic tried to accomplish (the only comparable decisions in ME would probably be the Rachni Queen, the Council/Ascension saving and the Collector Base, all of which were reduced to nothing of importance).

The lack of real moral ambiguity in making decisions in DA:O made it that much more intriguing. The addition of the symbols in DA2 gave away the exact nature of what each response would result in - I would know what option would trigger a fight, I knew which option would be the 'auto-win' and which option would cost me money, or make me money. It resulted in absolutely no need to understand what my character would say, since I could simply choose the outcome.

Choosing an OUTCOME versus choosing a DIALOGUE is VASTLY different. Granted, every piece of dialogue has an intended purpose, but eliminating the risk of saying the wrong thing means I am not role playing my character, but am simply meta-gaming, clicking the outcomes I desire, not the words I want my character to say.

THAT is the problem with the change in dialogue between DA:O and DA2. And that is why so many people react so strongly against it.

+1

[Sylvius the Mad]

Milan92 wrote...

The character feels more alive that way. The problem I had with DA: Origins was that even during sad scenes my warden still had that same emo expresion that he has during a happy scene. His face stays the same no matter what. I find it hard to take a character serious then.

And if you want to play a stoic character, what then?

Frankly, I didn't mind DAO showing my Warden's face most of the time, because most of the time the Warden's expression was blank, which is exactly what I'd like to see.  It was when he emoted that the game went wrong.

So by that standard, DA2 went wrong almost constantly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

The problem is that you'd still be limited to a few select personalities

Those personalities are, in large part, conveyed by the tone.  Freed from the fixed tone, we are freed from the fixed personalities.

Also, this would allow us to disable the subtitles as well, and then we'd be playing as if the paraphrases were the full text, which I think would be another improvement.

If the paraphrase says "Yes", then I want my character to say "Yes", and I'd like to decide how that line is delivered.

and have the PC do involuntary things the player may not choose.

That's a problem that needs to be corrected regardless of what they do with the voice.  That's a different issue.

The voice acting for me isn't so much a problem as is the focus of the entire element of 'cinematic delivery' and the limitation on roleplaying it seems to bring.

Yes, but they seem to be wed to the cinematic presentation right now, so I'm trying to find ways to make the game they want to make work for us better than it does now.

Simply turning off the voice wouldn't completely fix the game, but it would make it better.

In general, the more personality they forcefully try to infuse in the player character, the less it remains as my own, and voice acting isn't really necessary for that.

But it helps.  Again, the game still wouldn't be exactly what we want, but being able to turn the voice off would make the game better than it would otherwise be.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 août 2012 - 06:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

bEVEsthda wrote...

But voice still carries inflections which makes a spoken line less ambiguous than a written.

That's the part that needs to go away.

However, any RPG will never be perfect. We always have tolerable flaws we have to work around. Nothing new. And as long as it's not broken...

Having the character behave in ways contrary to my intent is not a tolerable flaw.  I would argue (and have repeatedly) that DA2 was broken.  As implemented in DA2, the voice+paraphrase broke the game.

[Hel]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

We want to be able to play our own characters.  So far, the voice is a hindrance to that.

That's easy to remedy. Add an audio option that allows players to mute the protagonist's voice. Done.

As for me, I'd rather keep it. The Warden looked ridiculous in Origins compared to the rest of the character cast.

[Mr Fixit]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The lack of real moral ambiguity in making decisions in DA:O made it that much more intriguing. The addition of the symbols in DA2 gave away the exact nature of what each response would result in - I would know what option would trigger a fight, I knew which option would be the 'auto-win' and which option would cost me money, or make me money. It resulted in absolutely no need to understand what my character would say, since I could simply choose the outcome.

Choosing an OUTCOME versus choosing a DIALOGUE is VASTLY different. Granted, every piece of dialogue has an intended purpose, but eliminating the risk of saying the wrong thing means I am not role playing my character, but am simply meta-gaming, clicking the outcomes I desire, not the words I want my character to say.

Great stuff.