83 réponses à ce sujet

[argan1985]

In DAO, it is incredibly immersion breaking to have a stone-faced dullard staring at me constantly no matter what is going on. I can't "imagine" an expression, because it's staring me right there in the face with an emotionless piece of statuette that occasionally moves. I can't see past it. It's right there, taking up my whole visual field. Blank, staring, uncaring, absolutely no reaction. I can't just unsee the golem.

The reason why isometric 2D > 3D. Always.

[upsettingshorts]

argan1985 wrote...

In DAO, it is incredibly immersion breaking to have a stone-faced dullard staring at me constantly no matter what is going on. I can't "imagine" an expression, because it's staring me right there in the face with an emotionless piece of statuette that occasionally moves. I can't see past it. It's right there, taking up my whole visual field. Blank, staring, uncaring, absolutely no reaction. I can't just unsee the golem.

The reason why isometric 2D > 3D. Always.

That's like reading someone complaining that they need to get gas for their car, and asserting the superiority of horses.

Which isn't to say you can't be into horses, but it doesn't really  address the problem.

Thankfully cinematic design does. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 décembre 2012 - 06:26 .

[CuriousArtemis]

d4eaming wrote...

motomotogirl wrote...

And smiling. My Warden would just stand there, saying nothing, and smiling with this blank look on his face.

It was kind of creepy 

Maybe our Wardens spent the whole campaign completely drugged up to their eyeballs because the end scenario really is kind of horrific, and the blank stare is the effect of copious amounts of opiates?

Yes, that must be what happened!  Or the shock from all the carnage rendered them into simpletons... or the sloth demon at the Circle executed some kind of lobotomy on him/her LOL

[Dani Douglas]

motomotogirl wrote...

d4eaming wrote...

motomotogirl wrote...

And smiling. My Warden would just stand there, saying nothing, and smiling with this blank look on his face.

It was kind of creepy 

Maybe our Wardens spent the whole campaign completely drugged up to their eyeballs because the end scenario really is kind of horrific, and the blank stare is the effect of copious amounts of opiates?

Yes, that must be what happened!  Or the shock from all the carnage rendered them into simpletons... or the sloth demon at the Circle executed some kind of lobotomy on him/her LOL

I didn't think it was that bad... thou there were moments where it was like "..... reallly, you don't react at all to that? seriously?" lol

[Wulfram]

I don't recall many occasions when they showed the Warden's face - the camera didn't focus on it much. In fact, I think you were more likely to get expressionless Hawke, since Hawke was on screen so much more

[Dani Douglas]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't recall many occasions when they showed the Warden's face - the camera didn't focus on it much. In fact, I think you were more likely to get expressionless Hawke, since Hawke was on screen so much more

That is very true, I think I saw the back of the head more then her face.

[Potato Cat]

In Origins I quickly connected to the Warden.
In DA2 it took sometime to connect to (Fem)Hawke. Even then, sometimes it was a bit off, (mostly during the emotional scenes and they didn't cry or really react or all).
I never felt connected to Shepard. At all. I felt like I was playing Bioware's character and that Bioware's character wasn't really all that likeable.

To me, the main difference is choice here. The Warden was more or less totally customisable, Hawke and Shepard just weren't. Yes Shepard has a few backgrounds, but they ultimately made no impact on the story. Hawke at least had the sarcastic tone which greatly helped me like the character.

[Fast Jimmy]

Dani Douglas wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I don't recall many occasions when they showed the Warden's face - the camera didn't focus on it much. In fact, I think you were more likely to get expressionless Hawke, since Hawke was on screen so much more

That is very true, I think I saw the back of the head more then her face.

...heh. 

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't recall many occasions when they showed the Warden's face - the camera didn't focus on it much. In fact, I think you were more likely to get expressionless Hawke, since Hawke was on screen so much more

You got (depending on the angle) the back of the Warden's head,with no expression or, well, anything. Which isn't an improvement at all. The camera cut to Hawke while you were picking dialogue, but that all depended on the speed of the player; I generally picked my line before the NPC finished, so I never really saw an expressionless Hawke/Shepard. 

[Sjpelke]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Dani Douglas wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I don't recall many occasions when they showed the Warden's face - the camera didn't focus on it much. In fact, I think you were more likely to get expressionless Hawke, since Hawke was on screen so much more

That is very true, I think I saw the back of the head more then her face.

...heh. 

.......

On topic though...part of getting connected to a PC is about imagioning facial expressions. Hawke was on screen so often in DA2 in cinematics that there was not much (or even any) room for own interpretation. It was already preset.

[In Exile]

secretsandlies wrote...
let say you are reading a book, in your imagination you are making characters of that book come alive.

No. You're wrong. 

how they look,

You're right. Which is why I can imagine Jaime Lannister as a short, overweight man with close cropped black hair, a missing eye and swarthy, almond skin, right? 

how they sound.

Like how Eddard Stark has a montone, emotionless voice, with a lisp?

That is why Warden is far more superior to Shep or Hawke

If you want to argue that you prefer silent PCs, go for it. But don't compare it with books, because books have fixed characters with fixed voices and fixed apperances. You get some lattitude in how a character looks, but not very much.

What to say, in Origins if you play a female character male npcs reacting differently which you can see in a dialogues. That was lost in DA2. And Shep - well let's be honest it doesn't matter do Shep have balls or ****** Shep is a Shep.

It's kind of impressive how wrong you are about this. 

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Beside lack of proper introduction, DA 2's prime crime against my roleplaying are

1. too much disconnection due to time frame and third person narrator. I'm pleased that it's highly unlikely for us  to experience this form of storytelling again in DA 3.  

Funny enough, I completely agree with you here.

3. Illusion of USELESS choices and too much railroading.

DA:O was the same. The only difference is that Bioware fails to follow up on your choice in a dramatic way in the same game, as opposed to in the sequel (cf. how ME2 handled choices from ME1). 

4. Too restricted to pick a dialogue choice in the form of tones or action choices  

You mean, exactly how DA:O worked? Right, how dare DA2 work in the exact same way as the previous game. Hate on PC VO if you want, but that part is identical.

5. Dumb scripted PC's response in  cinematic event. It ****** me greatly to see Hawke cheerfully enter Kirkwall and completely "forget" the death of Carver, not 5 minutes ago.

You mean like how the Cousland PC totally remebers or gives a crap about Fergus after Ducan tells you "LOLz no do the joining." 

Not to mention that Carver's death was weeks ago. 

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I agree. If you are feeling sadness (or believe your character should be feeling sadness) and see hem instead grinning from ear to ear, or even the opposite end of the spectrum and is being dramatic and maudlin, then that hurts the connection.

DA2 felt like the developers made this awesome character Hawke that they had a pretty clear vision on. And they told that character's story, they didn't let the player try to find of create their own in many ways.

[In Exile]

TsadeeHekate wrote...


On topic though...part of getting connected to a PC is about imagioning facial expressions. Hawke was on screen so often in DA2 in cinematics that there was not much (or even any) room for own interpretation. It was already preset.

I disagree compelely. To me, relating to the character is about the game reacting to what expression I choose for the PC to have. 

If I want the Warden to be an obsessive wreck and Fergus, and the game just doesn't let me express that, it doesn't matter what I can imagine. 

[Wulfram]

In Exile wrote...

You got (depending on the angle) the back of the Warden's head,with no expression or, well, anything. Which isn't an improvement at all.

For me, it is an improvement.

I don't see my own expression, unless I'm looking at a mirror, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.  In a conversation I expect to be focused on the person I'm talking too, not on myself.

[Minttymint]

I think with the backgrounds idea they are implementing- I shall connect to the character no problem (she hopes), even if you cant play them. For me it is the amount of freedom you get to create your character; background, personality, relationships, looks... The more control I have over the character the more connected I get. Thats not to say I dont connect with NPCs ME3 was the most emotional game Ive played for a good while and its all because of the NPCs.

In DA:O - I didn't create the Warden I created MY character that later became the Warden in a story which I helped create. 
In ME - I created Shepard; already in a role but I could still create MY Shepard and mould the story into one that suited them.
In DA2 - I created a version of Hawke and played through THEIR story... The most creating I did was the appearance and I think choosing which path to go down A (mages) or B (templars) and I guess who to romance were the only real choices I made in the game that mattered.

None the less its only my opinion and I love all games mentioned, maybe for different reasons but I love them all the same.

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...
I don't see my own expression, unless I'm looking at a mirror, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

We can feel our own expression. We don't see the backs of our heads. And we certainly don't see everything through a computer screen, pick a single sentence in advance, or stand perfectly still.  

In a conversation I expect to be focused on the person I'm talking too, not on myself.

A conversation is a two-way interaction. What you look like while you're interacting as (depending on what you're doing) as important as what the other person is doing. At least, in my line of work. 

[Wulfram]

In Exile wrote...

A conversation is a two-way interaction. What you look like while you're interacting as (depending on what you're doing) as important as what the other person is doing. At least, in my line of work. 

But you don't pull out a mirror and admire yourself, I guess.  You keep your attention on the other person.

[Sjpelke]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I agree. If you are feeling sadness (or believe your character should be feeling sadness) and see hem instead grinning from ear to ear, or even the opposite end of the spectrum and is being dramatic and maudlin, then that hurts the connection.

DA2 felt like the developers made this awesome character Hawke that they had a pretty clear vision on. And they told that character's story, they didn't let the player try to find of create their own in many ways.

My point on how Hawke is portrayed in DA2.

Looking at the back of the head of PC or 'over the shoulder' kind of view for me works to connect to him/her.

Cinematics that had to be lead to while playing the game did not give much room for creating an own story or way of reacting to events for as far that is possible in how the game is set up. I like 'the feel', even if I don't have it, that I can influence the story.

[imbs]

People actually cared about the Mother's death in DA2? It is so bad though.... so contrived and just awful in general. My personal reaction was a mixture of contempt and amusement, when i was able to do anything other than cringe that is.

[LobselVith8]

imbs wrote...

People actually cared about the Mother's death in DA2? It is so bad though.... so contrived and just awful in general. My personal reaction was a mixture of contempt and amusement, when i was able to do anything other than cringe that is.

It felt pretty cringe-worthy to me, and the plot of Leandra being the identical twin of someone else was right out of an old soap opera story. It was so silly that it was hard for me to take it seriously.

[Medhia Nox]

@imbs: When I was under the illusion that I had "caused" the death through my dialogue choices - I was impressed (though I agree that I was neither shocked nor saddened). Then - of course - I learned the truth about the design of DA 2... so by the end of that game, I was numb to Dragon Age 2: This story is actually about Anders.

I largely ignore voiced dialogue - provided facial expressions -etc. I've got no need for them. They don't add to my experience - they take away. So I'm largely ambivalent to whatever they add to the character in that aspect.  More would be better I suppose - for the people that like/need it in their experience.

I would prefer for more agency.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 04 février 2013 - 07:02 .

[Addai]

d4eaming wrote...
This is why a silent protag sucks. I can imagine voices and faces very well when I read. Because I am imagining ALL of them.

In DAO, it is incredibly immersion breaking to have a stone-faced dullard staring at me constantly no matter what is going on. I can't "imagine" an expression, because it's staring me right there in the face with an emotionless piece of statuette that occasionally moves. I can't see past it. It's right there, taking up my whole visual field. Blank, staring, uncaring, absolutely no reaction. I can't just unsee the golem.

That is a question of camera focus.  In a silent protag game, the camera should never swing to the protagonist's face.  The focus should be where the PC is looking- the other person in the conversation, the action they're watching.

The very jar that you experienced is what I find every time the PC opens her mouth and says something.  It pulls me out of being "in" the character and forces me to watch/ listen to her rather than to the flow of the story.  It is distracting and annoying.  Not only do I find it difficult to connect to these characters, it is very easy for me to begin to hate them.  A set character not so much, because there I'm already out of the loop to a great extent.  But to be invited to shape a character and have the pieces so frequently turn out wrong is an exercise in frustration.  If I have a lot of agency on the story, I can set aside this frustration and just experience it like I would a movie- possibly enjoyable but forgettable even in the best of cases.  If I'm active in creating the character, that's when I can fully engage and it's more likely to stay with me.

I'm convinced this is just a cognitive difference in how people process and experience a game.

Modifié par Addai67, 04 février 2013 - 08:47 .

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
I'm convinced this is just a cognitive difference in how people process and experience a game.

I agree - but it's a question of where that comes out of. Because the experience below:

But to be invited to shape a character and have the pieces so frequently turn out wrong is an exercise in frustration.  ... If I'm active in creating the character, that's when I can fully engage and it's more likely to stay with me.

Is exactly the reason why I find a silent PC so very lacking compared to a voiced PC. It's with the silent PC that I have the bolded problem. And a huge part of that is that I'm an assertive person who tends to be the centre of attention, and the silent PC just isn't like that. An NPC always drives the scene, and the PC reacts. And to me there is nothing more aggravating that that. The epitome of it (for me) wil always be in KoTOR, when Carth/Bastilla address the Jedi at the final battle rather than the PC, or when Alistair/Anora speaks to the troops rather than the Warden. 

That's as brutally OOC for me as anything auto-dialogue Shepard could say.

[Dani Douglas]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I'm convinced this is just a cognitive difference in how people process and experience a game.

I agree - but it's a question of where that comes out of. Because the experience below:

But to be invited to shape a character and have the pieces so frequently turn out wrong is an exercise in frustration.  ... If I'm active in creating the character, that's when I can fully engage and it's more likely to stay with me.

Is exactly the reason why I find a silent PC so very lacking compared to a voiced PC. It's with the silent PC that I have the bolded problem. And a huge part of that is that I'm an assertive person who tends to be the centre of attention, and the silent PC just isn't like that. An NPC always drives the scene, and the PC reacts. And to me there is nothing more aggravating that that. The epitome of it (for me) wil always be in KoTOR, when Carth/Bastilla address the Jedi at the final battle rather than the PC, or when Alistair/Anora speaks to the troops rather than the Warden. 

That's as brutally OOC for me as anything auto-dialogue Shepard could say.

I'm somewhat the same as you, I'm always at the center of attention because I always take the lead in everything but I'm also an extremely imaginative person so it didn't bother me all that much. and I also like the silent character more because it had more choices really, with Hawke it was only three and they still weren't all that great.  Other then that I did enjoy the voiced character.

[esper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Dani Douglas wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I don't recall many occasions when they showed the Warden's face - the camera didn't focus on it much. In fact, I think you were more likely to get expressionless Hawke, since Hawke was on screen so much more

That is very true, I think I saw the back of the head more then her face.

...heh. 

Problem was that there was moment where they did show the wardens face and it was always or which together with a body langue of a log leads, at the very least me, to imagine the face everytimes the warden does talk because that's the face I have been shown the most.