280 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Helekanalaith wrote...

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.

That's kind of the point Sylvius has been making - the devs have said they won't do this. Which is part of the point he is railing against in this thread.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Helekanalaith wrote...

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.

I've been asking for that since before DA2 came out.  They don't want to do it.

I've even asked if they could just package the audio files differently to allow us to mod the PC's voice out (without removing the rest of them), but again they refuse to do that.

And worse, they're justification for refusal is that they don't think it would work very well.  But the voice, as it is, doesn't work for me at all, so any improvement would be welcome.  They're applying an arbirary and irrelevant standard of quality.

[Jerrybnsn]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Helekanalaith wrote...

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.

I've been asking for that since before DA2 came out.  They don't want to do it.

I've even asked if they could just package the audio files differently to allow us to mod the PC's voice out (without removing the rest of them), but again they refuse to do that.

And worse, they're justification for refusal is that they don't think it would work very well.  But the voice, as it is, doesn't work for me at all, so any improvement would be welcome.  They're applying an arbirary and irrelevant standard of quality.

That was their justification for dropping the SP for the VO.  And I'm sure they are justifying keeping the VO because they believe that the real problems with DA2 was simply reused maps and lack of equipping your companions.

Gentlemen,

I think DA3 is going to be not much more than DA2: Revised. 

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 26 août 2012 - 09:26 .

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Helekanalaith wrote...

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.

I've been asking for that since before DA2 came out.  They don't want to do it.

I've even asked if they could just package the audio files differently to allow us to mod the PC's voice out (without removing the rest of them), but again they refuse to do that.

And worse, they're justification for refusal is that they don't think it would work very well.  But the voice, as it is, doesn't work for me at all, so any improvement would be welcome.  They're applying an arbirary and irrelevant standard of quality.

To you, at least.

I don't know if it would work or not anymore. The last game I played without a voiced protagonist was Kingdoms of Amalur, and to be frank it was boring to me because we had choice and consequences, without any real impact to them. It also didn't help that the voices around the silent protagonist were pretty weak as well, but thats besides the point. In the end, that detracted from any sense of role-playing there because I didn't care about what I was doing. 

Ironically Origin's does it a lot better by making it a more linear storyline with direction, so you have to care about what you say and who you speak too, since you are in the company of companions and what not. So I guess it depends on implementation for the voiceless protagonist, although in terms of gaming history, that is somewhat of an anachronistic approach in modern standards. Amalur and Origins were the last games to do it fully in the past five years that I can think of. I don't know if any others have a silent protagonist now. 

[Xewaka]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
That was their justification for dropping the SP for the VO.  And I'm sure they are justifying keeping the VO because they believe that the real problems with DA2 was simply reused maps and lack of equipping your companions.
Gentlemen,
I think DA3 is going to be not much more than DA2: Revised. 

They've been vehemently stating that ever since talks about the future came up.

[Jerrybnsn]

Xewaka wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Gentlemen,
I think DA3 is going to be not much more than DA2: Revised. 

They've been vehemently stating that ever since talks about the future came up.

I haven't really heard much about DA3, other than a few tidbits, but where do "they" say that the game is basically going to be DA2?  I could of sworn I heard it was to be a combination between Origins and DA2.  But so far,  I haven't heard of any Origin adoptions into DA3.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 26 août 2012 - 10:07 .

[Xewaka]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
I haven't really heard much about DA3, other than a few tidbits, but where do "they" say that the game is basically going to be DA2?  I could of sworn I heard it was to be a combination between Origins and DA2.  But so far,  I haven't heard of any Origin adoptions into DA3.

I don't have the source handy, but Laidlaw stated that "We won't do another 180º [turn], because we've already done that". So yeah, they're improving on DA 2, rather than going back to the drawing board (again).

[Jerrybnsn]

Xewaka wrote...

............Laidlaw stated that "We won't do another 180º [turn], because we've already done that". So yeah, they're improving on DA 2, rather than going back to the drawing board (again).

I remember that quote.  He said that one month after DA2's release, which was a year and a half ago.  I'm pretty sure I heard someone say that DA3 would be a combination of both Origins and DA2 within the last six months.

[Kidd]

Perspective is a wonderful thing. Lots of naysayers here choose to consider DA3 a future, polished DA2. Whereas me, who liked lots of the new things from DA2, feel justified in being worried silly the only things I'll get to keep are the dialogue wheel and the voice.

Perspective is everything =)

[Teddie Sage]

My Hawke belongs to me. I'm pretty sure nobody else will ever be able to recreate it. OC, I understand where you're coming from, but ever Dragon Age Origins' characters had defined phrases you could choose, the rest was left to interpretation. My Hawke said a bunch of stuff I may agreed or not with, but I don't actually care because I know this is just a game and I like him no matter what. Hawke was our character, we shaped his feelings, his friendships and rivalries. The plot felt weak because it wasn't as epic as Dragon Age Origins, but it was still entertaining for me while it lasted. Sarcastic Hawke was for me the best thing I experienced in Dragon Age II, along with Varric and Isabela in the same team.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I don't know if it would work or not anymore.

Of course it would work.  The games supported a deep roleplaying playstyle - they could do it again.

The last game I played without a voiced protagonist was Kingdoms of Amalur, and to be frank it was boring to me because we had choice and consequences, without any real impact to them.

I also found the combat repetitive, the ruleset shallow, and the animations surprisingly clumsy.

Amalur had problems well beyond the silent protagonist.

It also didn't help that the voices around the silent protagonist were pretty weak as well, but thats besides the point. In the end, that detracted from any sense of role-playing there because I didn't care about what I was doing.

Nor did I, but given that silent protagonist games have successfully done that in the past, there's no reason to blame Amalur's lack of voice for its failure.

Ironically Origin's does it a lot better by making it a more linear storyline with direction, so you have to care about what you say and who you speak too, since you are in the company of companions and what not.

That's not irony.  That demonstrates that the lack of a voice isn't a barrier to immersing you.  Congratulations.  You just joined my side of the debate.

So I guess it depends on implementation for the voiceless protagonist,
although in terms of gaming history, that is somewhat of an
anachronistic approach in modern standards. Amalur and Origins were the
last games to do it fully in the past five years that I can think of. I
don't know if any others have a silent protagonist now.

You missed Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, and Skyrim.  And New Vegas has a very strong story, so it cannot be that only games without strong authored narratives use the silent protagonist.

If only those games didn't use action combat.

Even though I didn't like DA2's combat, BioWare stiill does RPG combat better than anyone else.  I just wish they weren't ruining every other aspect of their games.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 août 2012 - 03:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Teddie Sage wrote...

My Hawke belongs to me. I'm pretty sure nobody else will ever be able to recreate it. OC, I understand where you're coming from, but ever Dragon Age Origins' characters had defined phrases you could choose, the rest was left to interpretation.

That the rest was left to interpretation is what makes Origins succeed where DA2 fails.

Also, DAO actually let us choose among the available options, rather than simply presenting us with PC behaviour that often bore little or no resemblance to the paraphrases we'd selected.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I don't know if it would work or not anymore.

Of course it would work.  The games supported a deep roleplaying playstyle - they could do it again.

The last game I played without a voiced protagonist was Kingdoms of Amalur, and to be frank it was boring to me because we had choice and consequences, without any real impact to them.

I also found the combat repetitive, the ruleset shallow, and the animations surprisingly clumsy.

Amalur had problems well beyond the silent protagonist.

It also didn't help that the voices around the silent protagonist were pretty weak as well, but thats besides the point. In the end, that detracted from any sense of role-playing there because I didn't care about what I was doing.

Nor did I, but given that silent protagonist games have successfully done that in the past, there's no reason to blame Amalur's lack of voice for its failure.

Ironically Origin's does it a lot better by making it a more linear storyline with direction, so you have to care about what you say and who you speak too, since you are in the company of companions and what not.

That's not irony.  That demonstrates that the lack of a voice isn't a barrier to immersing you.  Congratulations.  You just joined my side of the debate.

So I guess it depends on implementation for the voiceless protagonist,
although in terms of gaming history, that is somewhat of an
anachronistic approach in modern standards. Amalur and Origins were the
last games to do it fully in the past five years that I can think of. I
don't know if any others have a silent protagonist now.

You missed Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, and Skyrim.  And New Vegas has a very strong story, so it cannot be that only games without strong authored narratives use the silent protagonist.

If only those games didn't use action combat.

Even though I didn't like DA2's combat, BioWare stiill does RPG combat better than anyone else.  I just wish they weren't ruining every other aspect of their games.

Oh, I am no ones side in this "debate" as it were, because I find it amusing that people can decide what works for them must work for all.

As for those games you mentioned, only New Vegas really can count as a good example, since 3 was ok and Skyrim was a piece of crap. That said, they are also different style of RPG here, one that can get away without a voice becuase of the type of protagonist. 

Bold statement I know, but no BioWare game has ever done a fully controllable protagonist in that regard. So technically, it is both Bioware's character, and the player character, not one or the other. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

That a different problem entirely. For one, the cammera doesn't have to hug the PC's face all of the time. For another, it's not problematic to add player-controlled emotional expressions to the PC.

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?    

Paraphrasing IS a big problem.
There are a million shades of being snarky or diplomatic. The fact that you don't know what the character will say only serves to widen the gap betwene the character and you.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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.

Quoted for Great Justice!

[upsettingshorts]

A solid 87% [Citation Needed] of my posts containing the phrase "You're doing it wrong" are in reference to people who thought that you had to play one of the three types.

They are meant to be reactive and help describe how the line will be delivered, not direct your next choice. Therefore, in choosing which option to go with, I hardly deviated at all from my method in DA:O.  As such, to use your example, since I was playing something of a middle-ground straddling peacekeeper Hawke, I was often direct to extremists, and diplomatic to people who seemed to share my view.  Sometimes I even made fun of people.  The tracking mechanic never once punished me for being inconsistent.  Never.  Once.  Am I blowing your mind?

The reason it encourages people to play differently isn't because that's how it's intended, it encourages people to play differently because they're conditioned by Mass Effect to consider the personality types as akin to Paragon/Renegade. They are not.  The point of there being a dominant personality type as a result of this tracking was to add flavor to fixed dialogue and combat noise.  Sometimes being dominant in one way unlocked new options, sometimes it didn't, or just gave a different reading of the same choice.  A list of "rewards" for sticking with one personality icon throughout the whole game would be very short indeed.

The problem with the dialogue wheel, in that respect, is that it makes people think they are playing Mass Effect.

Paraphrases, VO, and tone icons can all be considered seperately from that fact.  I lost track of the number of people who were comparing a "Diplomatic" Hawke playthough to a Paragon Shepard playthough.  That's not how it's supposed to work, and guess what, it doesn't.  

Personally, I think knowledge that said tracking exists creates issues of expectations like the one the leads to this flawed interpretation of how the game ought to be played.  The benefits it offers are minimal, and overall it seems like more trouble than it's worth.  If BioWare could somehow guarantee that knowledge of its existence wouldn't lead to people playing the game totally wrong then I'd keep it, but since that's impossible I'd just cut tracking and leave in the tone icons.   

And I swear every time I hear someone describe swapping personality icons to fit the situation and context as schizophrenia in a post I feel the urge to drink myself into a coma because it's profoundly stupid.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 août 2012 - 09:44 .

[Hel]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Teddie Sage wrote...

My Hawke belongs to me. I'm pretty sure nobody else will ever be able to recreate it. OC, I understand where you're coming from, but ever Dragon Age Origins' characters had defined phrases you could choose, the rest was left to interpretation.

That the rest was left to interpretation is what makes Origins succeed where DA2 fails.

Also, DAO actually let us choose among the available options, rather than simply presenting us with PC behaviour that often bore little or no resemblance to the paraphrases we'd selected.

Going by your logic it's easier to assume Hawke is your character than the Warden is. Because in DA2 you choose your dialog options from an assumption of what you think the character will say. While in DA you picked exactly the wording that the writers laid out for you. There is more left to the imagination if you go by paraphrasing than there is when you pick exact dialog lines. (Edited for clarity.)

This whole topic makes no sense. If you want to play your own character, pick up the PnP books, because in the video games you'll always play BioWare's characters. The only thing you can do is experience the story within a set of boundaries for the offered protagonist.

RP-wise DA is a match for DA2.

Modifié par Helekanalaith, 27 août 2012 - 02:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

As for those games you mentioned, only New Vegas really can count as a good example, since 3 was ok and Skyrim was a piece of crap.

From the developer's point of view, Skyrim was terrific, because it sold a lot of copies.  If we're trying to convince BioWare to do things, pointing to market success is a pretty compelling argument.

That said, they are also different style of RPG here, one that can get away without a voice becuase of the type of protagonist.

BioWare's previous games have demonstrated quite effectively that the other type of protagonist (whatever that means) can also work without a voice.

Bold statement I know, but no BioWare game has ever done a fully controllable protagonist in that regard.

 I completely disagree.  I insist that BG, NWN, KotOR, and DAO all offered a fully controllable protagonist in this regard.  In all of those games, the player had full control over his character's personality.  What he said and how he said it were determined by the player.

Not until BioWare implemented the voice+paraphrase was this ability stripped from BioWare's players.

So technically, it is both Bioware's character, and the player character, not one or the other.

It's BioWare's setting.  It is not BioWare's character.  It isn't even BioWare's story.  The story and the character are both subject to the player's whim.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 août 2012 - 06:52 .

[jillabender]

Upsettingshorts wrote…

And I swear every time I hear someone describe swapping personality icons to fit the situation and context as schizophrenia in a post I feel the urge to drink myself into a coma because it's profoundly stupid.

To be fair, there were times when swapping personality icons led to Hawke responding in ways that fit the situation and felt consistent with the way Hawke had behaved previously.

But there were also times when I found that swapping personality icons led to Hawke behaving in ways that felt inconsistent with how he or she had acted previously, and the dialogue wheel and paraphrase system didn't always make it clear to me when swapping personality icons would lead to jarring changes in tone.

So far, that hasn't been a problem for me when playing Mass Effect, where it's easy for me to believe that the same Shepard who was agreeable in one conversation could be confrontational in another.

I was also frustrated by the fact that the dialogue system didn't always make it clear to me whether I was making a materially different choice about the content of what Hawke would say, or simply choosing his or her demeanour.

I think the dialogue wheel and paraphrase system has a lot of potential, but I also think that it wasn't handled as well as it could have been in DA2, and that it needs work.

Modifié par jillabender, 27 août 2012 - 07:10 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Personally, I think knowledge that said tracking exists creates issues of expectations like the one the leads to this flawed interpretation of how the game ought to be played.  The benefits it offers are minimal, and overall it seems like more trouble than it's worth.  If BioWare could somehow guarantee that knowledge of its existence wouldn't lead to people playing the game totally wrong then I'd keep it, but since that's impossible I'd just cut tracking and leave in the tone icons.   

I warned them this would happen.  This is one of the reasons I called for us to be able to choose among all of the available responses, not simply be handed the one they think is appropriate.

Helekanalaith wrote...

Going by your logic it's easier to assume Hawke is your character than the Warden is. Because in DA2 you choose your dialog options from an assumption of what you think the character will say. While in DA you picked exactly the wording that the writers laid out for you. There is more left to the imagination if you go by paraphrasing than there is when you pick exact dialog lines. (Edited for clarity.)

Except the lines aren't actually left to the imagination in DA2.  We do ultimately hear the full line - we just weren't able to choose the one we wanted.

I agree that choosing the paraphrases alone (and never hearing the full text) would leave more room for imagination.  This is why I'd like to be able to turn off the voice AND the subtitles for the PC.  That would be terrific.

But as designed, DA2 leaves less space for imagination because it tells us exactly how each line is delivered, and exactly what is said, while DAO only told us exactly what was said.  DA2 resolves more ambiguity.

This whole topic makes no sense. If you want to play your own character, pick up the PnP books, because in the video games you'll always play BioWare's characters. The only thing you can do is experience the story within a set of boundaries for the offered protagonist.

RP-wise DA is a match for DA2.

This is lunacy.

In DAO I could play a Warden who was dismissive, condescending, or obsessive.  DA2 offered me none of those options.  In DAO, I could save someone from an angry mob because I was keeping my word, or because I thought he deserved saving, or because saving him advanced a specific political objective.  DA2 never let me decide why I was doing anything.

[FieryDove]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

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.

That a different problem entirely. For one, the cammera doesn't have to hug the PC's face all of the time. For another, it's not problematic to add player-controlled emotional expressions to the PC.

I agree, but also they could have added expressions to the warden in origins but decided not too for whatever reasons. It would have been nice, all these "blank stare" complaints could go the way of the dodo.

Has no one played JE? The PC had a voice only in battle and yet in conversations (not all mind you but enough) I could look happy, sad, angry etc.

Ming with that...angry ebil look at a certain part of the game was all that was needed. Awesome! imho

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

As for those games you mentioned, only New Vegas really can count as a good example, since 3 was ok and Skyrim was a piece of crap.

From the developer's point of view, Skyrim was terrific, because it sold a lot of copies.  If we're trying to convince BioWare to do things, pointing to market success is a pretty compelling argument.

That said, they are also different style of RPG here, one that can get away without a voice becuase of the type of protagonist.

BioWare's previous games have demonstrated quite effectively that the other type of protagonist (whatever that means) can also work without a voice.

Bold statement I know, but no BioWare game has ever done a fully controllable protagonist in that regard.

 I completely disagree.  I insist that BG, NWN, KotOR, and DAO all offered a fully controllable protagonist in this regard.  In all of those games, the player had full control over his character's personality.  What he said and how he said it were determined by the player.

Not until BioWare implemented the voice+paraphrase was this ability stripped from BioWare's players.

So technically, it is both Bioware's character, and the player character, not one or the other.

It's BioWare's setting.  It is not BioWare's character.  It isn't even BioWare's story.  The story and the character are both subject to the player's whim.

Insist all you like, it doesn't make you correct. Mechanically the characters serve the same function as an avatar to the story being told by BioWare. The player just chooses how the story is told.

See, games like Fallout had a main storyline, yes, but it became negligable in the end because there was much deviation from the storyline to the point of it being, well, pointless. Arcanum was the same way, as were the Elder Scroll games and some of the Ultima titles.But you can't do that in Baldur's Gate, no matter how hard you try. You do not deviate from the main storyline at all,  Mechanically, you are following the story put forth by BioWare, using BioWares character as they go to a pre-determined endpoint that rarely, if ever, changes the storyline (Origins and to an extant Dragon Age II and Neverwinter Nights had deviations based on choices, but that was it.) 

You are right the player has control of the character, but it was only control of their actions, and in some cases, motivations within the confines of the storyline. It was not control of BioWare's story, that rarely changes in terms of its outcome,  That is a fundamental crux of the gameplay mechanics, and is pretty much the defining style that BioWare has used since Baldurs Gate. 

As an aside, from a developer point of view Skyrim is teriffic. That doesn't make it good. You can say the same thing about Call of Duty and Mass Effect 3, but a lot of people would disagree on those games as well. 

[jillabender]

Upsettingshorts wrote…

… in choosing which option to go with, I hardly deviated at all from my method in DA:O. As such, to use your example, since I was playing something of a middle-ground straddling peacekeeper Hawke, I was often direct to extremists, and diplomatic to people who seemed to share my view. Sometimes I even made fun of people.

That describes some of my playthroughs, too, and that's a good example of a way to portray a version of Hawke that feels fairly believable and consistent. But I don't find role-playing Hawke that way as satisfying as you seem to. I haven't been able to find any other way to play Hawke that really feels believable and consistent, so when I played Hawke that way, I didn't feel that playing the character that way was my choice, or that I was using my imagination to define his or her character.

Personally, I would need to know more about how Hawke is changed as a person by the events around him or her, and about how he or she is motivated to act the way he or she does, to really feel invested in the character. I suppose I could use my imagination to provide those details, but somehow, I'm just not motivated to do that when I don't have the freedom to imagine the character's personality and demeanour for myself. But maybe that's just me.

Modifié par jillabender, 27 août 2012 - 08:01 .

[Realmzmaster]

FieryDove wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ivandra Ceruden wrote...

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.

That a different problem entirely. For one, the cammera doesn't have to hug the PC's face all of the time. For another, it's not problematic to add player-controlled emotional expressions to the PC.

I agree, but also they could have added expressions to the warden in origins but decided not too for whatever reasons. It would have been nice, all these "blank stare" complaints could go the way of the dodo.

Has no one played JE? The PC had a voice only in battle and yet in conversations (not all mind you but enough) I could look happy, sad, angry etc.

Ming with that...angry ebil look at a certain part of the game was all that was needed. Awesome! imho

You mean Jade Empire that game by Mike Laidlaw. Perish the thought!:happy:
Seriously, some posters still would only want the blank expression. That way they can headcanon the emotions and facial expressions.

[FieryDove]

Realmzmaster wrote...

You mean Jade Empire that game by Mike Laidlaw. Perish the thought!:happy:
Seriously, some posters still would only want the blank expression. That way they can headcanon the emotions and facial expressions.

Well if one plays both games you can see the combat is similar. What was it called? Leaping tiger? My da2 rogue felt like that when playing.

To general BSN population:
I am not saying that is good or bad so don't bother people with the labels troll, bio-drone or anything else. thx