438 réponses à ce sujet

[eroeru]

^^ You have no reason whatsoever to think this is even a little costly. An addition of an option isn't like a whole new game-type - as far as I see it would take relatively ZERO time.

[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.

[Scitenik]

Personally, I love having a voiced character. I used to have the opposite view, since I preferred KOTOR and Dragon Age Origins style. The more I've played the ME games and DA2, though, the more voice acting and the dialogue wheel have grown on me.

Granted, that's mostly because I've enjoyed the voice actors. When the time comes that there's a voice actor I don't enjoy, I may start to see the downside.

[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

[DadeLeviathan]

As much as I want a return to the old system of having an unvoiced PC, Bioware has apparently made up their minds. All of their current games (DA2; ME1,2,3; TOR) all have voiced PCs. I can understand their design decisions, but as a player it means instead of projecting myself onto the game, I'm more of a puppeteer, directing the main character on his journey. And that is fine, but it's not what I want all the time. It used to be that I came to Bioware to get my fix for that. Now it seems that I'm going to have to start playing more indie games (or kickstarter funded games like Wasteland 2 and Project Eternity) to get my fix for that. Which I find sad.

Of course voiced PC doesn't mean the game will be any worse than it would be without it. In fact, it might be done so well that I will question why I ever wanted an unvoiced protagonist in the first place.

David, you've brought me some of my favorite writing moments within Bioware's games. While DA2 was less than stellar, the amount of great work you have under your belt far outstrips the work that hasn't impressed me. So I have faith.

[HereticDante]

Dear god please don't make a silent protagonist again. It's not like commander shepard would be more interesting if she/he were mute.

[DadeLeviathan]

HereticDante wrote...

Dear god please don't make a silent protagonist again. It's not like commander shepard would be more interesting if she/he were mute.

Arguing that Dragon Age shouldn't have a voiced protagonist becaause shepard would be horrible without a voice is just plain silly. It's two completely different games with two completely different protagonists. yes, Hawke and Shepard share similarities, where they are characters that you are driving, rather than playing your own role. Characters like the Warden or the characters from BG and BG2, Neverwinter Nights, etc. They are your projection upon the world. 

Of course, mind you, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your opinion. I completely understand why many people want a voiced protagonist. But using your argument is like saying that Dragon Age 3 should be a First Person shooter because it's being built upon the same engine as Battlefield 3. it makes very little sense because you're comparing apples and oranges. 

[eroeru]

HereticDante wrote...

Dear god please don't make a silent protagonist again. It's not like commander shepard would be more interesting if she/he were mute.

He/she would in fact be vastly more interesting to play for many a player if it were an option - if you can't understand this perspective, don't at least claim those who do are ignorant. (*that* is in fact ignorant)

I for one could not get into ME really. It had its merits, but it was boring and uninspiring as an RPG.

We had nothing to do with shaping Hawke's or Shepard's personality. We had everything to do with shaping the Warden's.

I for one will be really really disappointed if the developers can not understand this (and I bet they can).

And even if it worked in ME, the most striking issue is that if DA will feel like a continuation of ME, fans will be heartbroken, even if slightly (and that's enough for a "holy quest" type metacritic bombing etc).

Modifié par eroeru, 05 octobre 2012 - 12:43 .

[Chaos Lord Malek]

Its a waste of resources and time. Thank god, the Bioware can see that.

[eroeru]

^ "The" Bioware?

Anyway, I am fully confident in naming that (your) position ignorant.

Modifié par eroeru, 05 octobre 2012 - 12:29 .

[Amycus89]

I'm against voiced protagonist, but my major concern with it isn't the voiceacting itself, but all the other changes that indirectly comes from it. - primarly the lack of actual lines and dialogue options. II know the below pic has been posted frequently here before, but I think it illustrates the problem pretty well:
Can you imagine the cost to do voiceovers for all the dialogue in Planescape:torment?


If my memory serves me correct, voice actors are paid not for the number of lines they say, but for a certain number of hours, as well as travel expenses and the like. Meaning, that if they later decide to change a line that needs to be voiced, the cost for that single line will be quite expensive, and the whole scene might be cut instead. With a voiced protagonist I imagine this kind of situation to be a lot more frequent.

If I'm wrong about this, that would be great, but all RPGs with a voiced protagonist that comes to mind for me right now has had a much smaller amount of dialogue options compared to non-voiced ones. Look at DA2 with its standard 3 options (ALWAYS only 3 options, except from the occasional "Investigate, but I barely count them since they never gives any real consequence, there is no reason NOT to choose all of them), or the ME series with Paragon and Renegade (and a whole lot autodialogue).

There are of course other concerns I have with a voiced protagonist, like the risk of me simply not being able to stand a certain voice (I know several people liked fHawke's voice, but personally I didn't like it, and felt forced to play a male one just because of that), or how odd it feels to make a second character and see him speak the same lines, with the same voice, as my previous character but with a different face, or the paraphrases, etc. Those are however all smaller issues that I can at least look past by without letting that influence my opinion of the game too much. The amount of dialogue options however, is something I can't look past. It's 99% of the experience for me.

I'm not expecting anything on the level of Planescape: Torment, but I AM expecting something like DA:O, as far as dialogue options go. Don't just decide beforehand "in this situation we are going to have 1 paragon, 1 sarcastic, and 1 renegade option. Now what kind of lines should they actually say for each one?" Write the lines first beforehand, and THEN you can categorize them by colour and put voiceovers for them if you want.

It's the written dialogue options that should influence how the voiceovers become, not the opposite.

EDIT: To make an example, if Bioware suddenly released a patch to DA:O that just added voiceovers to the warden, I wouldn't really bother to complain, heck I might even enjoy it,  assuming that it ONLY added voiceovers and didn't change the dialogue and options already there.  

Modifié par Amycus89, 05 octobre 2012 - 01:14 .

[eroeru]

I'd like to add that of course even such minor yet important details need to fit in with the overall design and envisionment. If it doesn't, of course it'd be better that the detail be omitted. But I'm frankly having a hard time picturing a Dragon Age or Bioware game where a silent protagonist hasn't a place.

I probably won't buy that sort of game, and if things are bad even, then it'd probably que a disappointment and a kind of anger.

[SANNAFABICH]

yes, despite the fact that some people think they might enjoy it (regardless of whether it would actually work as they imagine)

I do agree with most of your argument, but this is plain offensive. We are not stupid, you know.

Modifié par SANNAFABICH, 05 octobre 2012 - 03:23 .

[Medhia Nox]

I don't know anything about game design - but perhaps some kind member of the community could remove the PCs voice.

I don't want to deprive others - but I absolutely hate that the PC never says what's in text verbatim.

I can ignore it - sure - and I will, but I wonder why "No Helmet" is somehow "more relevant" than this? Is it because it's a "newer request" and game designers haven't taken the plunge - or do game designers truly believe it's a fringe element that will die off (very possible).

If you can't (won't) remove the voice - can you at least make them say what's in the text? Not "in the spirit of" what's in the text? That in no way takes more resources that you weren't already going to spend on voiced "improv".

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

I don't want to sound antagonistic or ungrateful for the feedback David and Allen have provided here, but...


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. 

[Fast Jimmy]

BrotherWarth wrote...

SANNAFABICH wrote...

yes, despite the fact that some people think they might enjoy it (regardless of whether it would actually work as they imagine)

I do agree with most of your argument, but this is plain offensive. We are not stupid, you know.

Yeah, that's pretty condescending.

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?

[Realmzmaster]

I think there should be a toggle switch to turn off all the voices. All conversations will be shown in a textbox or as speech bubbles. The PC will select all lines from the textbox. No indication of tone, cunning or persuade. Allow the gamer to dope out which line makes use of those skills.

Any party banter will be shown as speech bubbles between the party members. If the PC can join in the conversation an option to do so will appear in the textbox. The party members will stop talking until the PC decides to join in or not. If the PC signals he/she wishes to join the banter then responses that can be said appear. The banter can then continue.

The only sounds will be music and sound effects. Cinematics can be handled the same way.

Those who want voice can have the wheel, tones etc as it is in DA2 with enhancement to the paraphrases.

Any multiplayer component should be as dlc. Those who want it can purchase it for an additional cost. Also the multiplayer component should be designed by a different team as not to take any resources away from making the main game.

Any dlc that could be released on the first day (except for multiplayer) because it was being worked on after the game went gold and during the certification process should be held until one or two months later to give the illusion that it was being worked on in that time interval.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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?

The two obvious differences are that the writing is different, and the pacing of the conversations would be different as we'd have to wait for the cinematics on each line (even though the voice was missing).

Also, unless we got a new UI, we'd still be using the paraphrases, but the NPC responses wouldn't be responses to the paraphrases - they'd be responses to the full line (which we didn't choose).  So many of the problems of the voiced protagonist would persist.

I still think turning it off would be better than leaving it on, even with all these issues, but it clearly wouldn't be as good as if the game were designed for the silent protagonist from the ground up.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

We only put in options that we will support and think are viable ways to play our game

Then let us do it.  If you're concerned that simply disabling the voice will produce a substandard experience, and you don't want BioWare to release a substandard game, then let us mod it.

Players don't blame BioWare for bad mods.  If you let us mod out the voice (the way the voice files were packaged in DA2 made this basically impossible), then everyone's happy.  You get to release a game you think is good, as we get to play the game the way we enjoy.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I'd agree, of course. I'd love the option to not see Hawke or Qunicy at all when they speak. Their expressions just reinforce the idea that I do not control the character. If I'm playing a set protagonist, this doesn't bother me at all (the more set, the less it bothers me) but when giving lots of options in where a character comes from, their perspective on the world and how they handle things in the world, the more intrusive any expression not directly controlled by me things feel.

A mute button for the PC and a dialogue list is a step in the right direction (or, at least, a foothold from slipping into the other direction too far).

[EpicBoot2daFace]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Glad to hear it. (no pun intended)

[Merlex]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

I don't want to sound antagonistic or ungrateful for the feedback David and Allen have provided here, but...


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. 

I don't want to be antagonistic either, but i have to agree. It does seem to be inconsistent.

[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 .