110 réponses à ce sujet

[Pauravi]

Wozearly wrote...

One of the key reasons for requesting this is that voice acting tends to lead to more linear conversational paths.

I never really found that to be true.  Conversations in DA took a very similar arc to conversations in DA2.  The same types of responses were present, the only real difference was that you didn't have to guess which lines would end the conversation and which wouldn't, and you didn't have to keep repeating the same response to get back to the questions you wanted to ask (as opposed to flipping back and forth between dialogue wheels).  Otherwise it was the same: Good Guy response, Funny/Neutral Response, A-Hole Response, and questions # 1 and 2 (which may or may not have a follow up).

Wozearly wrote...

Admittedly, another is that people get gripey when it feels they have to second guess how their character is going to say something in addition to wondering what the effect is going to be on the person they're saying it to

TBH I had the exact same problem with the unspoken dialogue in DAO.  Sure I didn't have to listen to my character say the line "wrong", but how it was said becomes plainly obvious by the response of the character you're talking to.  Sometimes the people who write the text responses word them in such a way that their intention is ambiguous (even if they don't think it is).  I haven't found the "wait that's not what I meant!" factor any higher with voiced protagonists.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think, perhaps, a better question is why one game would be PERCEIVED to have more freedom than another? The amount of ACTUAL choices is, honestly, a little pointless, since it is the feeling, the player's PERCEPTION, that ultimately is the determiner. Baldur's Gate didn't have a lot of choice opportunities in how to address situations with gameplay when compared to a game like Planescape, yet the amount of dialogue options (and shades of intent, emotion and purpose) is surpassed. Meanwhile, a game like DA2, which had a decent amount of custom dialogue based on certain situations (such as friendship/rivalry with your companions) is stated as having much less choice.

I'd agree, which is why I personally place a ton of value on the first playthrough for myself. If I replay a game and pull the curtain back and realize there wasn't the level of choice that I thought there was (i.e. Deus Ex), I don't let that negatively affect the game for me.

[Fast Jimmy]

I agree, however your example of Deus Ex (where you have the false option of joining UNICEF) would possibly be jarring and aggravating if you had tried to join UNICEF and had been blocked (I would assume). In that case, the perception of choice would have possibly been shattered (although I personally never took that path, so I haven't seen how the game handles it one way or the other).

But the risk that is always run is that a choice is made (or a player WANTS a choice to be made) that hits the wall of reality and is blocked. In reality, DA2 and the dialogue wheel could have three investigate options, D/S/A options and then a special option (like using magic for a Mage) and then another option to do something else, like a bribe. However, there's options are PERCEIVED as more if in a list showing all eight options. Seeing a wall of options makes it appear like tons are on the table. But hiding the investigate options in a sub menu, having a system that rewards staying with one tone (like D/S/A) or staying in one personality/morality (like Paragon/Renegade), then this really only comes off as two or three options (one tone, a special and a bribe, which could e seen as sub-optimal if you have a special/autowin option).

So while a game may HAVE more options in, say, dialogue, the player FEELS like they have less options, based on either the interface, the underlying game mechanics like tone or even just the fact that the one option they chose may have hit a wall the writers had to put up in order to keep the story in the borders of staying 'on the rails' as it is said.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 novembre 2012 - 04:25 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I agree, however your example of Deus Ex (where you have the false option of joining UNICEF) would possibly be jarring and aggravating if you had tried to join UNICEF and had been blocked (I would assume).

Possibly. It wasn't though (since I made the other choice). I don't recall what happens if you try to stay peaceful with UNATCO (aside from ultimately knowing it doesn't work), though my perspective is forever slanted because it's not what I first chose to play.

My point was merely an anecdote agreeing about the perception of choice and nothing more.

[Josielyn]

I have to say that voiced companions is absolutely worth keeping. The voice acting was superb and is more responsible for the emotions I felt than the actual events themselves. I would not want to trade it in. Now the main protagonist is another matter, and I believe is covered by another thread. Again, I am wishing for a way to record your own voice reading the text lines that cover your options. Would that be a miracle, or just a very expensive add on?

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

My point was merely an anecdote agreeing about the perception of choice and nothing more.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was dwelling overly much on that one example. 

I was trying to focus on how freedom in a game is perceived in different ways (which, granted, may be a little off-topic from the OP, but I think still pretty relevant to the general thrust of the coversation). 

A good example may be from DA2. I just recently learned that you can actually complete Act 2 with Sister Patriece still alive. While I really wouldn't want to spare her (even as a pro-Templar, pro-Chantry character playthrough, I can't imagine a character that would be thrilled with the idea of being in total cohorts with such a sleazy NPC, but I digress...) I was surprised that the option existed, as I never picked up on any way this would be possible. 

If the player had a vey aggressive tone and sides with Patriece in her anti-Qunari stance at every opportunity, then the events coalesce that you spare her before the Qunari Uprising (to the best of my knowledge, this is how it plays out, at least). If you side with Patriece and have another dominant tone, this option doesn't present itself. If you are a fully aggressive character but did not side all anti-Qunari (for instance, you did not execute the Qunari prisoners in the sewers) the option is not offered either. Hence why many people, like myself, did not even know t was an option.

Contast that with another more obscure option like, say, being crowned ruler of Ferelden in DA:O. If you are male or female, this option is brought up if you broach the subject of marriage with Anora or Allistair prior to the Landsmeet, regardless of your Origin. Anora shuts you down as a male if you are of any race or Origin, but it puts the bug in your ear. If you are female, Allistair seems to think it somewhat possible. If you do pick him (and don't hitch him to Anora) he'll come back and say it can't happen, one way or the other. His excuse if you aren't a Human Noble is that the other nobles wouldn't support him with a commoner bride. This would then lead you to think that it could be possible with a noble origin. If you try to do it as a dwarf noble, he says they wouldn't support a non-human. And then if you try it as a female human noble, he will act like he doesn't have enough backbone to make the move, implying that he may be more receptive if he is hardened. 

Point being, the game throws the choice out there, but has a myriad of obstacles in the way that make the choice very difficult to achieve. Whereas with DA2 and the option with Sister Patriece, the option is only discussed if it is an option that you can choose - nothing in the vanilla playthrough would prompt many to think this option would be optional if certain conditions were met. In both cases the choice was conditional on a number of prior decisions, but with DA2, the option was never discussed unless all of those conditions were already met, meaning if you didn't meet those conditions, the choice was not even on your radar, which could lead the player to think or perceive that there aren't as many choices in DA2. 

[cindercatz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Contast that with another more obscure option like, say, being crowned ruler of Ferelden in DA:O. If you are male or female, this option is brought up if you broach the subject of marriage with Anora or Allistair prior to the Landsmeet, regardless of your Origin. Anora shuts you down as a male if you are of any race or Origin, but it puts the bug in your ear. If you are female, ... 

I just wanted to correct this bit. ;-) My male Human Noble warrior hit if off perfectly well with Anora, married her as king consort, and even arranged for Leliana to be his concubine, seeing as the marriage was 90% political. Most likely it had a lot to do with your cunning score, though I really couldn't say as I played each origin exactly once a piece. DA:O has such a great deal of reactivity and branching (especially the origins themselves and the ripples they provide for both your character and every major story beat out from that), which is why I love it so much.

Back on topic, I don't see having a voiced protag or more voicework in general as at all restrictive to branching. I do see ways to improve it (like I mentioned on the first page) and to reprioritize branching over having the most possible players seeing the greatest possible percentage of the content developed for the game. For my money, it's better to have more branching and replayability than to stuff everything you can into any given playthrough. I'd rather have more layered depth than a longer, more linear experience.

On tone: I think it's great and DA2 did this better than I've seen in other games so far, but it doesn't replace actual plot branching. If the tonal choices all lead to the same or inconsequentially variable outcomes, then the player, or speaking for myself at least, doesn't really get as great a value out of that system. The tones are nice for flavoring your character, but they need to be an additional layer of complexity, not the tradeoff for less plot branching.

edit: And tones shouldn't restrict available choices. Having a certain demeanor in any given interaction shouldn't reduce your available choices of action. I don't think PC voice, tones, or the dialogue wheel are really inherantly restrictive in themselves.

Modifié par cindercatz, 11 novembre 2012 - 08:01 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I just wanted to correct this bit. ;-) My male Human Noble warrior hit if off perfectly well with Anora, married her as king consort, and even arranged for Leliana to be his concubine, seeing as the marriage was 90% political. Most likely it had a lot to do with your cunning score, though I really couldn't say as I played each origin exactly once a piece.

It actually has nothing to do with your Cunning score and is available to any human noble male. I just simply do not consider King Consort anywhere near the same league as being ACTUALLY king (or queen, which is possible). Anora is wearing the big boy pants in that monarchy. I had the impression no one would treat you as anything more than her sex toy.

edit: And tones shouldn't restrict available choices. Having a certain demeanor in any given interaction shouldn't reduce your available choices of action. I don't think PC voice, tones, or the dialogue wheel are really inherantly restrictive in themselves

I don't inherently disagree with the idea. If the game is going to have a dominant tone, having content that is specific to a character with that dominant tone is actually fairly interesting. That being said, the game (or the writers, as need be) need to do a better job of advertising that "Hey, you have X as your dominant personality, that is why Y is happening, or Y ISN'T happening, as the safe may be."

[Fast Jimmy]

One last thing (then I'll let this thread die), I think the DA team could implement one of the ideas in how the ME dialogue wheel was set up that could alleviate this sense of less choice.

In ME, you could be shown dialogue options your character was not able to use (due to a Paragon/Renegade/Reputation score that was not high enough). These options would be grated out, showing that the game offers more options, but that you do not meet the requirements for it.

For instance, if there was special dialogue that was dependent on you having a dominant tone, have that option on the wheel, but show it frayed out (possibly with an icon or signal that shows WHY it isn't accessible). This could work for class-specific dialogue, or even companion dialogue (like how Merrill could dispel the Profane demon in the Deep Roads if she was in your party - which would be blocked out |but still visible}is she wasn't in your party).

Since Gaider has said (and repeatedly recently) that the first playthrough is of the most importance, showing what options would be on the table if other factors were different would be something in line with this philosophy, I would think. As is, certain scenarios we saw in DA2 were hard to even identify as having differences unless the conditions were perfectly algned to give us something else.

[budzai]

I would be happy if they would just drop the voiced protagonist ****... but thanks for console players it won't happen ever..

[budzai]

Pauravi wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...

It seems like if one were to plot a chart, the moment at which RPG's started being fully voiced is the same moment they started being far more restrictive in their design.

Any examples?  Because I really can't see any change in restrictiveness (as far as story branching or dialogue goes) between KOTOR or DA and, say, DA2.

that's your fault...

[AlanC9]

budzai wrote...

Pauravi wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...

It seems like if one were to plot a chart, the moment at which RPG's started being fully voiced is the same moment they started being far more restrictive in their design.

Any examples?  Because I really can't see any change in restrictiveness (as far as story branching or dialogue goes) between KOTOR or DA and, say, DA2.

that's your fault...

An actual argument here would be nice.

Bio's never done much branching, whether the protagonist is voiced or not. Neither have most devs.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 novembre 2012 - 08:16 .

[Todd23]

Graphics slow them down as well. I say they make it 100% text-based.

[budzai]

AlanC9 wrote...

budzai wrote...

Pauravi wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...

It seems like if one were to plot a chart, the moment at which RPG's started being fully voiced is the same moment they started being far more restrictive in their design.

Any examples?  Because I really can't see any change in restrictiveness (as far as story branching or dialogue goes) between KOTOR or DA and, say, DA2.

that's your fault...

An actual argument here would be nice.

Bio's never done much branching, whether the protagonist is voiced or not. Neither have most devs.

why? he didn't make any argument either....

by the way if you have silent protagonist you can RP a lot of charcter
if it is a voiced protagonist you can play just one

[AlanC9]

budzai wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

budzai wrote...

Any examples?  Because I really can't see any change in restrictiveness (as far as story branching or dialogue goes) between KOTOR or DA and, say, DA2.

that's your fault...

An actual argument here would be nice.

Bio's never done much branching, whether the protagonist is voiced or not. Neither have most devs.

why? he didn't make any argument either....

Heh. That's fair. But to repeat, Bio games have not done any less plot  branching with VO protagonists than before VO. They may have done slightly less dialogue choices, but I can't verify that  with data (ME3 brings the VO average down a little, since they spent the word budget on other things.

by the way if you have silent protagonist you can RP a lot of charcter
if it is a voiced protagonist you can play just one

I don't see this at all. If there are three lines there are only three lines, whether silent or VOd.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 novembre 2012 - 11:37 .

[Rawgrim]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Combat-only design replaced more creative ideas involving skill checks, as an example.

Just as a note, I think if you look back in RPG history Combat-Only design has been a heavy mainstay. I find many early RPGs to really be not a whole lot more than combat simulators and if you were lucky there was a decent story attached to it.

Which old CRPGs actually allowed for skill checks to circumvent combat? I'm trying to remember any and coming up blank.

Planescape Torment, Baldur`s Gate 2 (based on your charisma stat. Few times, though), Fallout 1-2. Arcanum. Icewind Dale 2 let you use diplomacy to avoid combat (once or twice). Kotor had it.  Some games also lets you sneak past enemies to avoid combat. Sneaking was a skill, so it counts. i can think of a ton of games that let you do that. I guess you haven`t played too many old crpgs.

[pmac_tk421]

A voice acted main character rather than a silent one makes the conversation flow better in my opinion.

[Allan Schumacher]

It actually has nothing to do with your Cunning score and is available to any human noble male. I just simply do not consider King Consort anywhere near the same league as being ACTUALLY king (or queen, which is possible).

What on earth is the difference between King Consort and Queen?

Planescape Torment, Baldur`s Gate 2 (based on your charisma stat. Few times, though), Fallout 1-2. Arcanum. Icewind Dale 2 let you use diplomacy to avoid combat (once or twice). Kotor had it. Some games also lets you sneak past enemies to avoid combat. Sneaking was a skill, so it counts. i can think of a ton of games that let you do that. I guess you haven`t played too many old crpgs.

Again, I think the issue here is what people consider "old" CRPGs. Since Hoorayforicecream is quoting me, it may be prudent for me to clarify that I am talking about *very old* (see 1980s) CRPGs. By today's standards many are just dungeon hacks in comparison.

[hoorayforicecream]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Planescape Torment, Baldur`s Gate 2 (based on your charisma stat. Few times, though), Fallout 1-2. Arcanum. Icewind Dale 2 let you use diplomacy to avoid combat (once or twice). Kotor had it. Some games also lets you sneak past enemies to avoid combat. Sneaking was a skill, so it counts. i can think of a ton of games that let you do that. I guess you haven`t played too many old crpgs.

Again, I think the issue here is what people consider "old" CRPGs. Since Hoorayforicecream is quoting me, it may be prudent for me to clarify that I am talking about *very old* (see 1980s) CRPGs. By today's standards many are just dungeon hacks in comparison.

That's what I thought as well. Baldur's Gate is not "old". I was talking about the gold box games, bard's tale, might and magic, quest for glory type games.

[Fast Jimmy]

What on earth is the difference between King Consort and Queen?

The Queen of England is married to a guy right now. Someone she married after the real king died. No one cares about who he is (I think he is named Prince Phillip, honestly), he doesn't have the title of king. In other words, he's a nobody, he just happens to be married to the queen. Meanwhile, Prince William just married Kate Middleton. When the queen dies, William will be king. And Kate will be queen. THAT'S the difference. Power!

I'm not all gung ho about British royalty, so I may have gotten some of the details there wrong. But the gist is the same - king consort to Anora would be a 'shut up and try not to embarrass me' role, while a Warden Queen would be just that - queen.

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Planescape Torment, Baldur`s Gate 2 (based on your charisma stat. Few times, though), Fallout 1-2. Arcanum. Icewind Dale 2 let you use diplomacy to avoid combat (once or twice). Kotor had it. Some games also lets you sneak past enemies to avoid combat. Sneaking was a skill, so it counts. i can think of a ton of games that let you do that. I guess you haven`t played too many old crpgs.

Again, I think the issue here is what people consider "old" CRPGs. Since Hoorayforicecream is quoting me, it may be prudent for me to clarify that I am talking about *very old* (see 1980s) CRPGs. By today's standards many are just dungeon hacks in comparison.

That's what I thought as well. Baldur's Gate is not "old". I was talking about the gold box games, bard's tale, might and magic, quest for glory type games.

Not old? It came out in '98. That's fourteen years ago. There could be members of the BSN who aren't that old. There are likely members here who at least weren't old enough to be in school when it came out (5 years old + 14 = 19 yo, of which I am aware of a number), so if that doesn't make it "old-school" I don't know what to say. Same thing for Fallout. Bard's Tale, M&M and Quest for Glory even more so (the original Quest for Glory release, Hero's Quest, came out in 1989, for Pete's sake). 

We've made progress since those days in terms of technology, animation, sound quality interface... but the case could be made we've neglected (and even regressed) in gameplay. These games may have only offered pale shadows of varied gameplay outside of combat, little more than PnP dice rolling in some cases... but instead of building on those facets, the industry has, by and large, focused on one mechanic (stealth) and left all others forgotten except for a small handful of IPs. 

A piece of rhetoric I hear people saying recently is "not simulation, stimulation." Which is, to me, not neccessarily mutually exclusive. People have gone bananas over the release of the new XCom, which is very much still a simulation-type game. Exploring different options, playstyles and creating a world where the only answer isn't just "stab-stab shoot-shoot" to solve all of your problems doesn't make your game eosteric or boring, by default.

Not that I think anyone in this thread is advocating that, but it seems the regression is becoming more palpable every year.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 novembre 2012 - 02:18 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Planescape Torment, Baldur`s Gate 2 (based on your charisma stat. Few times, though), Fallout 1-2. Arcanum. Icewind Dale 2 let you use diplomacy to avoid combat (once or twice). Kotor had it. Some games also lets you sneak past enemies to avoid combat. Sneaking was a skill, so it counts. i can think of a ton of games that let you do that. I guess you haven`t played too many old crpgs.

Again, I think the issue here is what people consider "old" CRPGs. Since Hoorayforicecream is quoting me, it may be prudent for me to clarify that I am talking about *very old* (see 1980s) CRPGs. By today's standards many are just dungeon hacks in comparison.

That's what I thought as well. Baldur's Gate is not "old". I was talking about the gold box games, bard's tale, might and magic, quest for glory type games.

Not old? It came out in '98. That's fourteen years ago. 

Fine, I will rephrase. I can't think of many "early" CRPGs that allowed for more than combat. Does that suffice, or would you prefer to continue making semantic arguments? I do not plan on participating if you do.

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Planescape Torment, Baldur`s Gate 2 (based on your charisma stat. Few times, though), Fallout 1-2. Arcanum. Icewind Dale 2 let you use diplomacy to avoid combat (once or twice). Kotor had it. Some games also lets you sneak past enemies to avoid combat. Sneaking was a skill, so it counts. i can think of a ton of games that let you do that. I guess you haven`t played too many old crpgs.

Again, I think the issue here is what people consider "old" CRPGs. Since Hoorayforicecream is quoting me, it may be prudent for me to clarify that I am talking about *very old* (see 1980s) CRPGs. By today's standards many are just dungeon hacks in comparison.

That's what I thought as well. Baldur's Gate is not "old". I was talking about the gold box games, bard's tale, might and magic, quest for glory type games.

Not old? It came out in '98. That's fourteen years ago. 

Fine, I will rephrase. I can't think of many "early" CRPGs that allowed for more than combat. Does that suffice, or would you prefer to continue making semantic arguments? I do not plan on participating if you do.

I do not. That's why I only devoted three sentences of a four paragraph response to it.

EDIT: Well, looking back, slightly more than that. But still, definitely not the bulk of my response.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 novembre 2012 - 02:21 .

[FINE HERE]

AlanC9 wrote...

by the way if you have silent protagonist you can RP a lot of charcter
if it is a voiced protagonist you can play just one

I don't see this at all. If there are three lines there are only three lines, whether silent or VOd.

But with DA2 there are three tones, where as DA:O didn't apply a tone to every answer, and some could be read relatively neutral, where as in DA2, you had to be one of three tones because of the way the dialog was voiced. 

For example, let's say Hawke walked up to a young woman. They have the usual 'who are you, I am so and so' banter when she suddenly asks: "Can you help me find my dog?"

DA:O would have replies such as this:
1. Of course, where did you see him last?
2. No, I am too busy at the moment.
3. Do I look like I care about your dog?
4. What's in it for me?
(Rare:)
5. I found a dog in [location] not too long ago. Was it yours?
6. Tell me what your dog looks like and maybe I'll find him.

DA2 would have replies such as this:
1. (Diplomatic: How can I help?) [in a concerned voice:] Your dog is missing? That's terrible, how can I help?
2. (Sarcastic: What did you do?) [in a snarky voice:] Now what on earth did you do to make him run? Poor dog must have legged it towards freedom.
3. (Agressive: I don't care.) [in an annoyed voice:] Why would I give a damn about your dog?
(Rare:)
4. (Greedy?: Pay me.) [in dominate tone:] Make it worth my time, and I may consider it.

And then they'd ask again if you want to help the young woman in DA2, even if you essentially told her off in the above prompt, or if your dominate personality tone is 'jerk.'

In DA:O, you could refuse without making your PC sound like a jerk. But in DA2, a tone is assigned, and it changes the character's personality due to the way the line is read out. Change your tone multiple times in one playthrough and your Hawke sounds like he/she is suffering from multiple personality disorder with the way he/she sounds.

At least, that's how I saw it...

[Rawgrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It actually has nothing to do with your Cunning score and is available to any human noble male. I just simply do not consider King Consort anywhere near the same league as being ACTUALLY king (or queen, which is possible).

What on earth is the difference between King Consort and Queen?

Planescape Torment, Baldur`s Gate 2 (based on your charisma stat. Few times, though), Fallout 1-2. Arcanum. Icewind Dale 2 let you use diplomacy to avoid combat (once or twice). Kotor had it. Some games also lets you sneak past enemies to avoid combat. Sneaking was a skill, so it counts. i can think of a ton of games that let you do that. I guess you haven`t played too many old crpgs.

Again, I think the issue here is what people consider "old" CRPGs. Since Hoorayforicecream is quoting me, it may be prudent for me to clarify that I am talking about *very old* (see 1980s) CRPGs. By today's standards many are just dungeon hacks in comparison.

Ahh. My bad. People keep reffering to those games as old, when it seems to me it was just some weeks ago since i played them for the first time.

I agree with the very old games, though. Pretty much pure hack and slash. Maybe with the exception of ultima 4 and 5.