14 réponses à ce sujet

[David Gaider]

BrotherWarth wrote...

I know I'm not alone in preferring a silent PC. I just prefer it from a role-playing perspective. And maybe it's just because I'm not a game designer, but it seems like it wouldn't take much work to implement this feature. They could keep the facial movement of the PC speaking to avoid the problem Origins had with the Warden blankly staring at people.

What say you, Bioware?

You mean simply turn off the player's voice? So you see the lips moving, but you don't hear anything?

No, sorry, I really doubt we would ever offer that as an option. We would only offer options that we could honestly look at and say "yes, this is something we think looks good and is a viable alternative to what we've presented". This is not something to which we could say that.

[David Gaider]

BrotherWarth wrote...
The idea of the lips still moving was just inteded to make implementing a silent PC option cheaper and easier. Plus, a lot of people who liked the silent PC in Origins hated the dead-eyed staring the Warden did when "talking."

Because the voiced PC talks, there's a lot more screen time spent showing the PC talking... the visuals are designed to take into account the PC's participation, whereas with DAO we knew that wasn't the case. I think you underestimate just how much "dead time" you'd be dealing with, here. Either way, it's safe to say this is a non starter. Sorry.

[David Gaider]

BrotherWarth wrote...
Gaider still didn't say it was off the table. And I don't think Gaider would be the decision maker on gameplay mechanics since he's the lead writer, not the project lead.

No, it's not my decision-- but I think I know what the answer would be, particularly as it affects dialogue and those are systems of which I have a lot of knowledge. If you prefer to look on that as wiggle room that leaves you hope... well, okay. Up to you.

Modifié par David Gaider, 26 septembre 2012 - 10:01 .

[John Epler]

Alright, let's take the bickering out of the thread, please.

[John Epler]

'Stop bickering' was not a suggestion.

[David Gaider]

Novate wrote...
it seems you got fans that wants you to spend most of your time in making sure there is an Non Voiced PC option.

I'm not sure that it would be an incredibly expensive feature.

However, any expense is too much if it directly contradicts our intended design and results in a poorer experience-- yes, despite the fact that some people think they might enjoy it (regardless of whether it would actually work as they imagine). We cannot and have never put in a toggle for everything a particular player wants. We only put in options that we will support and think are viable ways to play our game, and must also weigh such potential options against the resources they would take to provide the biggest "bang for our buck"-- we are not at the point where we can put in every game option we can dream up and are looking for where to spend extra resources even for things that don't cost a great deal.

And, yes, that means some people aren't going to get the exact type of game they want. This falls under "you can't please everyone", I suppose. We will, however, do our best to please as many as we can with the limited resources available-- despite all the contradictory feedback we get even here among our most hardcore fans.

This is not something we expect any fan to understand-- no fan is going to care what something costs or how much we have to spend. How could we not spend resources on what they want? We're pulled in a lot of directions, and like I said we'll try our best.

[Allan Schumacher]

Just to supplement David's point regarding cost, in that even if it is not an expensive feature, it still means it must come at the expense of some other (probably also inexpensive) feature.

Feature lists for stuff we'd like to do in our games are typically not small lists

[David Gaider]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I have to begrudgingly agree here. We've seen a silent PC in games before. We've seen the silent PC in BIOWARE games before. I'm not sure what about the experience (if we were to get it) would be outside the realm of our comprehension?

Because simply turning off the voice in a game with a voiced protagonist does not make it the same as a game with a silent protagonist. We write for a voiced protagonist. We arrange the cinematics for a voiced protagonist. It's not the same.

So while people are more than qualified to identify things they don't like or things they'd like to see brought back (like a voiced protagonist) -- I certainly cannot question someone's preferences in the slightest-- quite often when they come up with what they see as a solution I don't see that as actually addressing their stated issue. In this case, if we allowed you to turn off the voice you'd likely still say that's not what you wanted... because clearly what you really want is a silent protagonist, not a muted voiced protagonist. And when I say we won't do it, it's because we're not going to go out of our way to implement a feature that won't even satisfy the people who are advocating for it... because what they're advocating for is a fundamentally different game which that won't give them.

I'm not sure how this makes me arrogant. You're qualified to state your preferences, but I think my experience in actually making the system has to count for something. Kind of like the people who said I was arrogant for suggesting that it was indeed my right to determine what life and death meant in the story to characters like Leliana... when that is, in fact, my job and not simply something I talk about on the forums for the hell of it.

[David Gaider]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Its mind boggling to me that the 'limited resources' argument gets used to discuss why a requested feature can't be implemented (like a mute PC or full text toggle) but when discussing a feature many fans protest (like multiplayer), limited resources or "it will come at the expense of something else" are claims that only curmudgeon, stuck-in-the-mud fans bring up, and not at all how video game design/budgeting actually works. 

Again, not trying to be seen as abrasive, but just find it... inconsistent... when two different feature decisions are defended with seemingly opposite logic.

That should really only be confusing if you consider those features equivalent.

Multiplayer is the sort of fundamental feature we would discuss, make part of our strategy, and assign additional resources for.

Resources can indeed be put aside to implement things like toggles-- but they're evaluated with a different bar. Why? Because resources are prioritized by how important they are to the overall game. Considering every toggle we implement we would need to support and test as if it were a legitimate way to play (and this is especially relevant when the toggle would fundamentally contradict the design of the game), it's not an inconsiderable cost... and thus the resources put aside for such a small part of the game are already limited. As I said previously, we're not casting around looking for toggles to put in. This is not Toggle Quest.

Could we put additional resources towards toggles, as we do towards fundamental design features? Sure. But we never will, and anyone who thinks we should has an unbalanced view of how games are designed-- which I wouldn't blame anyone for having, as there's no reason for you to be knowledgeable about such things, but it is something we have to contend with.

Modifié par David Gaider, 05 octobre 2012 - 07:49 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I have to begrudgingly agree here. We've seen a silent PC in games before. We've seen the silent PC in BIOWARE games before. I'm not sure what about the experience (if we were to get it) would be outside the realm of our comprehension?

Has a BioWare game ever had a silent PC that still moved around and animated and behaved like he was talking (complete with lip sync and emotive gestures)?

[David Gaider]

jillabender wrote...
That said, I also appreciate that there are people who understand the problems created by muting a voiced protagonist but would still choose that option if it were available.

In my experience, people saying they understand the problems and actually being okay with them are two different things. It might be true for the individual, but generally this is not the case. The complaint, after all, is by people who don't like the design direction... they're saying they'd like a compromise because that's all they think they might be able to get, but what they really want is a different design.

Do you really think that, if we implemented such a toggle, they'd suck up any gaps between that experience and an actual silent protagonist design and say "well, we've no right to complain since we got what we asked for"? Of course not. They'd say "that doesn't go far enough-- take it the rest of the way."

And I'm saying there would be a gap. Anyone who says there wouldn't be is wrong, with all due respect. An individual might be willing to put up with it, or are saying they'll put up because they think it'll get them closer to what they actually want-- which is a different fundamental design. I understand, but that's not going to happen and I really don't think this would help... and that's about all the discussion I'm going to get into about it.

[David Gaider]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
We apprecaite the response, David. And if this is truly the case, then the only plea I'd have left is that either a mod kit be included for DA3 to let players try and take a stab at this experience on their own, or that when compiling/creating resource files, the possilibity of a modder going in behind you to try and do this be, on the most back burner area possible, on your mind.

Well, whether or not it's possible to mod isn't something that needs to be on the back of my mind, as it's a programming issue and not a design one. I suspect that's not something that would be easily left open for modding, but not because we're trying to close it off from player access but out of necessity. But that's just a guess on my part.

Also, I'm kind of giggling to myself on the "and that's about all the discussion I'm going to get into about it." line. Just because it seems like you say that, and then in a matter of hours, get dragged back into a conversation pretty often. At no fault of yours, of course, just seems like that's the way these conversations often go.

This is true. Sometimes I find that if I don't say that, however, that people think I'm up for an argument over it-- I've more or less said my piece on the subject, and ultimately it's not my call. If Mike came along and said "no, we'll do it differently" then we would change the design as we would with any call that's his prerogative to make. Knowing what I know about a system I have a great deal of input into, however, I just don't see that being the case.

[Allan Schumacher]

Here is the problem for me, I dont beleive that multiplayer is a fundamental feature of an RPG game it might be a nice feature to add that could keep players interested longer, but a fundamental feature no.

It's more a "fundamental" feature in that there are several layers to it and there is a lot more to it, including the idea that you may in fact be able to quantify it in a way to receive additional funding.

It's more difficult to take small, exceptionally incremental features and make a reasoned argument that additional funding should be made specifically for that small incremental feature (especially compared to a different, incremental feature).

It's also fundamental in that it's something considered from the beginning and can exist and be understood on a simple level for what potential advantages/disadvantages could be.


Look at Project Eternity, where they've made a pitch for a general idea (which is enough to get people funding it via kickstarter), but deep down the details for a lot of things just don't exist because they haven't been planned yet.

When making a pitch, unfortunately, the idea that the game will allow for full voiced cinematic scenes as well as the ability to have a complete silent and non-emotive NPC is probably not something that is going to get mentioned (and if it was, probably wouldn't be very persuasive when discussing budgeting and things like that).

THe idea of "fundamental" feature is that when comparing something like silent PC with multiplayer, is that the features aren't really comparable at all.

[Allan Schumacher]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

Where's the lock? Mods getting lazy.

I appreciate the vote of support.