208 réponses à ce sujet

[mopotter]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

The Warden is voiced  in a sense*see voice sets*

I prefer the dynamic voiced Fem Hawke voiced over the soulless "silent" Warden just pity she couldn't be an elf...


Boring ass disclaimer: This is just my own personal opinion YMMV

Yes!  This exactly.  I've never thought of my characters as not having a voice.  They yell stuff all the time in a voice that does not sound anything like mine, probably a good thing.  The fact that that voice doesn't say the dialogue just meant I heard that voice in my head not through my ears.

I also liked Hawke's voice and Shepard's.  Both male and female versions.

[mopotter]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

DeathScepter wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

The Warden is voiced  in a sense*see voice sets*

I prefer the dynamic voiced Fem Hawke voiced over the soulless "silent" Warden just pity she couldn't be an elf...


Boring ass disclaimer: This is just my own personal opinion YMMV

Voiced Sets don't count as being voiced.   The problem with voiced PCs is that potential of being bad.

Yes it does to me atleast

You are not alone in this.  May only be two of us, but you are not alone.  

[In Exile]

J.C. Blade wrote...
To that:
A) There are lovers of non-voiced PC who don't give a damn that the NPC doesn't react to imaginary tone
(I don't correct people half the time in real life when they think I'm joking or being serious, why should I do it in game). In fact, it improves our immersion. Something we are not getting that anymore, are we?

It's almost like this is subjective, and that people react to misunderstands differently, and people feel limited in video-games only when their natural reactions are excluded. But that would be absurd. It would mean that tastes aren't objective and different features could be valued differently by diferently people!

And
If they want a voiced PC, with full PC-to-NPC cinematic dynamic banter incorporated, then they should do a fully pre-defined character whose personality can only be stirred a bit (much like Geralt or Adam Jensen); so no misunderstandings, scrapping of a created character and surprises explode to player's face two thirds of the in the game and make you want to pull your hair out at the wasted time.

I don't understand this rant. TW2 and DX:HR weren't faultess. They were limited in gender customization (which to some players is very important - not everyone wants a gritty white dude with a deep vocie). 

What does defining gender add to the VO or cinemacis? What does define the facial features add to this? Again - someone can like having the voice determined (especially if you find the dialogue very restrictive and vague and find that VO adds personality and makes the characters more identifiable) without wanting a lot of completely independent features - like backstory, facial/body CCC etc. fixed. 

[J.C. Blade]

d4eaming wrote...
I find it pretty rediculous to not care about NPC reaction. It would be game breaking for me to have my PC intend an insult and the NPC think I just complimented them. There may be real people in real life who are that utterly dim that they can't tell, but that would be an incredibly frustrating playing experience, because then I have to force my PC into something I didn't want in order for reactions to make any sense at all.

I do not want to count how many times this happened to me in DA2. You want to your Hawke to be a shy, withdrawn person who doesn't make friends easily? Tough luck. She's very outgoing and is gonna be friends with everyone in her group - and rivalry IS a form of friendship in this game since companions still worship the ground Hawke walks on and come to her for all their problems. And this is just one example of how I was forced to reshape my perception of Hawke from my original concept. It happened over and over again.

d4eaming wrote...
To point B, I honestly have never once experienced anything of the sort in my game plays. What is there to misunderstand when the intent, via dialogue wheel, is actually clear? I always know that top is diplomatic/paragon and bottom is aggressive/renegade. What shocking revolations come to light when you have a clear indication of what personality you are building in your character when it's all laid out clear as day? I've played all three options in DA2 and seen nothing of the sort. That is what I found to be a problem with unvoiced. There is no clarity, therefore there is suprise, because my intent does not match what the assumed intent was when creating the NPC response.

It doesn't need to be an utterly predefined character, and if that's your argument, there's no point in having options at all, because it's already defined. Hawke/Shepard aren't already defined just because their options are voiced and the dialogue wheel makes it clear what the tone will be.

The arguments otherwise are just completely nonnsensical to me. Clarity means surprises? Maybe in backwards world it does.

I don't know how you play it, but I create the characters personality in my head BEFORE the game starts. Right there at the title screen. It worked for all of Bioware's games before DA2. Even ME1 allowed for a little bit of that thanks to what most players like to call "personality of a brick wall".

So yes, I do get surprised, a lot, when the PC, whose supposed to be mine in some respects, starts making statements in the middle of the game about things I've ruled out as a character trait. There is no clarity because I don't know who this character that Bioware had created is supposed to be. I do not do any roleplaying, I am forced to discover his/her hidden depths throughout the game. And if it were a pre-defined character it would have been fine and I'd love to see what the writers have intended for this character and his/her story.

Again, this is simply my perception and I know I'm no longer getting any of these from Bioware. I'm merely sad that it is ruled out as some kind of archaic, wrong way to play the games.

[J.C. Blade]

In Exile wrote...

And
If they want a voiced PC, with full PC-to-NPC cinematic dynamic banter incorporated, then they should do a fully pre-defined character whose personality can only be stirred a bit (much like Geralt or Adam Jensen); so no misunderstandings, scrapping of a created character and surprises explode to player's face two thirds of the in the game and make you want to pull your hair out at the wasted time.

I don't understand this rant. TW2 and DX:HR weren't faultess. They were limited in gender customization (which to some players is very important - not everyone wants a gritty white dude with a deep vocie). 

What does defining gender add to the VO or cinemacis? What does define the facial features add to this? Again - someone can like having the voice determined (especially if you find the dialogue very restrictive and vague and find that VO adds personality and makes the characters more identifiable) without wanting a lot of completely independent features - like backstory, facial/body CCC etc. fixed. 

I never said anything about restricting the gender, just the personality, male and female since they're going with that. But it's easier for writers to have a preset character when they write out banter and relationships with the NPC, or even the view of the world this PC may poses. What it adds is essentially the game, and the NPC being able to reference the main character's background, personality and emotions in depth, without making sharp turns to avoid the topic that might fall into player's domain, as in DA2. ME3 avoided the whole thing by taking away the control over Shepard's development completely and god help you if your roleplaying of the Commander hasn't been in-line with Bioware's vision of Shepard by that point. That is my opinion on it anyway.

I enjoy two types of RPG, one where I create the character from grounds up with minimal background input from the game and experience the world through their eyes shaped by me; and two, where character is predefined, voice, gender, background, personality and I'm being shown the world, by the writers, through the eyes of a character they want me to experience.

I don't play interactive movies, which I consider DA2 and ME3 to be. Again, my preference. Again, I am aware that I'm not getting any of what I enjoy in DA3. Or ever again from Bioware.

Modifié par J.C. Blade, 25 décembre 2012 - 11:11 .

[argan1985]

I will base my purchase on the review I see on the RPG Codex. If it's something like the fairly accurate (and slightly positive) review of DA:O, I will probably get it, since you can't trust major gaming sites. (Just look at DA2 scores)

[d4eaming]

J.C. Blade wrote...
I do not want to count how many times this happened to me in DA2. You
want to your Hawke to be a shy, withdrawn person who doesn't make
friends easily? Tough luck. She's very outgoing and is gonna be friends
with everyone in her group - and rivalry IS a form of friendship in this
game since companions still worship the ground Hawke walks on and come
to her for all their problems. And this is just one example of how I was
forced to reshape my perception of Hawke from my original concept. It
happened over and over again.

I know rivalry is a form of friendship. Why are you bringing that up? Companions are always going to "worship" the PC. Everything revolves around the PC, companions included. In DAO they could actually leave, and never come back- so can a couple of NPCs in DA2. I really don't view that as a breaking point, though. It'd be pretty bland if all your companions ****ed off and left you by yourself. In DAO, my rogue doesn't have Wynne, because he defiled the ashes, and doesn't have Sten because I didn't get my charm high enough to pursuade whoever it was to release him. That sucks, and in DA2, companions not leaving unless you explicitly decide to get rid of them is an improvement.

I don't remember it being possible to play any BW protag as shy. They always have to be outgoing to some degree, otherwise there'd be no story to tell because they'd never interact with anyone.

J.C. Blade wrote...
I don't know how you play it, but I create the characters personality in
my head BEFORE the game starts. Right there at the title screen. It
worked for all of Bioware's games before DA2. Even ME1 allowed for a
little bit of that thanks to what most players like to call "personality
of a brick wall".

No character of mine is ever created sight-unseen. It is built during the character customization screen and intro to the game. I get a feel for the framework I am going to be using and go from there. Trying to create something whole-cloth without even seeing the context you'll be working in seems a bit like you're already gunning for disapointment, to me. My Warden was made the same way, by creating his looks and then choosing his dialogue during his origin story. Same in BG and NWN and ME. You simply won't have the option, within any video game, to do whatever extreme personality you want. There isn't enough dialogue in the world for that.

That's why I use the established framework to build my character. If I want total freedom, as you seem to want, then I write fiction. When I play in someone else's sandbox, I play by their rules. That means the PC is always going to be somewhat outgoing, for example, because otherwise, there's no story. I am a shy person IRL. I certainly would not ever be running errands for strangers or walking up to people to ask them their problems, which is what every BW PC has to do.

J.C. Blade wrote...

So yes, I do get surprised, a lot, when the PC, whose supposed to be
mine in some respects, starts making statements in the middle of the
game about things I've ruled out as a character trait. There is no
clarity because I don't know who this character that Bioware had created
is supposed to be. I do not do any roleplaying, I am forced to discover
his/her hidden depths throughout the game. And if it were a pre-defined
character it would have been fine and I'd love to see what the writers
have intended for this character and his/her story.

This still simply makes no sense to me. At all. You have a mostly blue character, you have a mostly red character, you have a mostly middle of the road character. BW didn't create my characters for me. I define their personalities through the available options. No game will let you do otherwise. My Shepard is mostly paragon but takes renegade when needed. That's not BW letting me explore "their" character, that is the character that I created.

Having Hawke unvoiced will never let you play him as a shy person who doesn't make friends easily. Being voiced does not change that fact at all. Taking away the dialogue symbols won't let you play a shy Hawke either. It's just not coded into the choices they provided for the PC. Stripping out those two things- the VA work and the dialogue symbols- won't magically give you the options you claim are lacking in the game. I honestly do not see how that is different from DAO in any respects. If DAO were voiced and had symbols to indicate tone, the options would all still be the same- except then I would actually be able to pick an option and it convey the tone I was expecting, because the tone is indicated by the symbol next to the line.

If you want absolute control to do literally anything at all, then you need to use a medium that gives that flexibility. A video game will have finite choices that you can use to define your character. That's the flaw of this particular system. I have no problem using the system to get the character that I want to play, because I deliberately chose to play within the framework provided, and accept the flaws as a condition of the game.

My warden didn't have the option to leave Alistair behind to deal with the blight all by himself, which is exactly what he would have done if BW had coded that option in (maybe they should have and given a nonstandard game over screen of "Alistair fails to stop the Blight; Ferelden, and your clan, are destroyed").

You either accept the limitations of the system, or you don't. Not having infinite options to play as whatever you want is a limitation of the game- including Origins. It is not a DA2 problem, it is a video game problem.

[Steppenwolf]

In Exile wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...
What the hell are you talking about? Who brought up TES? Do you even know what you're talking about at this point?

I'm mocking you. Since you seem so very convinced that you can evaluate which features of a game are financially succesful based on ... well, what, exactly? I gave you an counter-narrative. Because what you're doing is making up an explanation that suits your pre-existing view.

I did no such thing. You have reading comprehension problems. One poster said it would be "retarded" to revert back to a silent PC. I said it would make less sense not to since Origins was a more successful game. Nowhere in that statement is an insistence that Origins was more successful because because it had a silent PC. And I then went on to say that I think the success of Origins and relative failure of DA2 is due to the sum of the parts, not a single feature. Where in any of that am I doing what you're accusing me of doing? You read more into what I wrote than I actually wrote and went on a tirade. A nonsensical one. Use some common sense.

[In Exile]

J.C. Blade wrote...
I never said anything about restricting the gender, just the personality, male and female since they're going with that. But it's easier for writers to have a preset character when they write out banter and relationships with the NPC, or even the view of the world this PC may poses.  

The writers do (and did) exactly this for both DA:O and DA2. You can see it very clearly in-game (especially in the origins). The Cousland PC, for example, is clearly set up to be a youth after adventure who is frustrated about being left behind and not particularly keen on scholarship. The City Elf PC is meant to be a rabble-rouser, someone who doesn' t know his/her place, and is a headache for the entire alienage. There are even lines of dialogue to this effect. It goes on.

What it adds is essentially the game, and the NPC being able to reference the main character's background, personality and emotions in depth, without making sharp turns to avoid the topic that might fall into player's domain, as in DA2. 

DA:O, as I mention above, did the same thing (except that you had the chance sometimes to tell NPCs to ****** off when they asked about you). 

I don't play interactive movies, which I consider DA2 and ME3 to be. Again, my preference. Again, I am aware that I'm not getting any of what I enjoy in DA3. Or ever again from Bioware.

I only enjoy creating my own characters; I don't play pre-set PCs unless I can relate to them beforehand. But, of course, what it means to "create" my own character matters varies quite a lot for me versus what it sems to vary for other people. Things like background and personality are very easy to roll with the punches for me, unless you give me a character who isn't assertive or is shy. But things like appearance and facial CC, that's a huge problem. 

[99DP1982]

I do not mind voiced protagonist, and TW2 showed that you can make quality RPGs with voiced/fixed protagonist.

The problem that the production is facing is meeting the high standards of an RPG. ME2, DA2, and ME3 go more and more downhill in RPG scale into action with good narrative... Anime styled oversized weapons and stupid combat moves were one of crimes in DA2, auto-dialog and mindless combat focus (which was repetitive and boring) of ME3 were another "sin".

The game is most likely a "no buy" to me, but not because of voiced protagonist...

[In Exile]

BasilKarlo wrote...
I did no such thing. You have reading comprehension problems.

Ouch. Internet insults! My pride, so hurt. 

One poster said it would be "retarded" to revert back to a silent PC. I said it would make less sense not to since Origins was a more successful game. Nowhere in that statement is an insistence that Origins was more successful because because it had a silent PC.

Umm... the underlined statement and the bold statement are inconsistent. There is a clear inference that the silent PC was a relevant feature (i.e., a feature that influenced the success of DA:O, in a position direction), since otherwise it wouldn't make less sense (i.e., if it was a feature that was a drawback or neutral). 

And I then went on to say that I think the success of Origins and relative failure of DA2 is due to the sum of the parts, not a single feature. Where in any of that am I doing what you're accusing me of doing? You read more into what I wrote than I actually wrote and went on a tirade. A nonsensical one. Use some common sense.

Let's see:

I said the sales of the games was due to the sum of their parts. The voiced PC being one part of DA2. 

That was in response to:

No, he's completely right, you implied that having a voiced protaganist was detrimental to DA2's sales, a claim to which there is zero evidence to support it.

So, let's play the "common sense" game. You say that DA:O was more succesful than DA2. You say that it makes more sense to revert back to a feature that DA:O had, but DA2 didn't. You then say that DA:O and DA2 are a result of the "sum" of their parts, but that PC VO was a "part" of DA2. 

The only logical inference here is that you are making the claim that PC VO (or the switch to PC VO, based on the comment below re: ME) is a reason for the success of DA:O, vis-a-vis the number of sales. If you were making any other claim, then this statement:

[Origins sold more than twice as many units as DA2. It makes less sense not to change back.

Would be pure nonsense. Unless you believed that PC VO was a net positive.  Parsing your awkward double negative, what you are really saying is "It makes sense to change back." The obvious justifcation being that this is a feature which will increase sales, i.e., a feature that made DA:O succesful. 

Moreover: The original ME quote:

A poster said:

ME has had a voiced protag all along and is very successful, so insinuating that using VA work will reduce sales of DA3 just seems incredibly naive.

Your response:

ME didn't start with a silent protagonist and then switch. 

The clear implication here is that you do think that VO will reduce the sales of DA3. And that fits precisely with the reasonable intepretation of your previous post, namely that PC VO was a negative feature in DA2 (insofar as sales were concerned, because it was "a part") hence the comparison between DA:O and DA2 in the first place. 

Even if your response here is that what you are saying is that the switch is bad, that doesn't work given that your post was in response to DA3, i.e., not going back to the PC VO makes less sense than going back to PC VO. Which is to say that you are continuing to make the claim that PC VO is a net negative feature for the DA series. 

Modifié par In Exile, 26 décembre 2012 - 12:12 .

[Steppenwolf]

Instead of trying to tell me what I'm saying, why not just read my posts? Origins was twice as successful as DA2. DA2 changed many things. One of them was a voiced PC. From a purely logical standpoint it makes less sense to keep features of the less successful installment. I can't know how many, if any sales were lost because of the PC's voice or lack thereof. What I can and do know is that the one with a silent PC sold twice as many units. Ergo, keeping a voiced PC makes less sense than reverting back to a silent PC. It's not difficult to work out. Please use common sense.

[d4eaming]

So, you're basically saying that voiced protag, being part of the changes made to DA2, made it sell fewer units than DAO, which was silent.

The ME franchise has sold over 10m units. It has a voiced protag. Generally speaking and taking into account the "sum of its parts," voiced protag means a successful game.

That's not less illogical than your assertions.

[Steppenwolf]

d4eaming wrote...

So, you're basically saying that voiced protag, being part of the changes made to DA2, made it sell fewer units than DAO, which was silent.

The ME franchise has sold over 10m units. It has a voiced protag. Generally speaking and taking into account the "sum of its parts," voiced protag means a successful game.

That's not less illogical than your assertions.

Comparing Dragon Age to Mass Effect in this regard is not logical. Again, Mass Effect has always had a voiced PC and Dragon Age made a change to voiced PC. Origins also sold more units than any Mass Effect game. And to take a page out of Exile's playbook, Skyrim sold more units than the entire Mass Effect series and the Dragonborn is silent. So your assertion is much less logical than mine.

[hoorayforicecream]

Making economic arguments when you don't have all of the facts is foolish. Selling 4 million units and breaking even is not necessarily preferable to selling 2 million units and doubling the initial investment. Since none of us have that particular bit of pertinent information, all you are doing is speculating... and one person's speculation is just as good as another's when it is unfounded.

Trying to compare products' financial success without knowing the costs involved is like trying to calculate the area of two rectangles when you only know their lengths. It's silly to even bother.

[Steppenwolf]

It doesn't really matter if Origins cost more to produce though. We're talking about consumer appeal. And I can guarantee you no one at Bioware was enthusiastic about DA2 selling less than half as many units as Origins just because it cost less to make.

[hoorayforicecream]

BasilKarlo wrote...

It doesn't really matter if Origins cost more to produce though. We're talking about consumer appeal. And I can guarantee you no one at Bioware was enthusiastic about DA2 selling less than half as many units as Origins just because it cost less to make.

They could be much happier that they made more money overall on DA2 than they did on DAO. But hey, that's just speculation. Just like what you're doing.

Going back to the original point of the topic, they've already decided that they are sticking with a voiced protagonist. And, as you can see from the posts in this very thread, there are supporters for the voiced protagonist as well as those who dislike it, and even posts from people who have no strong feelings one way or the other.

If you wish to continue trying to "prove" the voiced protagonist is a bad idea by appealing to your and others' false consensus bias, go right ahead. Far be it from me (or fact) to stand in your way. That windmill ain't gonna tilt itself.

[Bravery]

I don't have a problem with a voice protagonist ME had one and I think they did it pretty well regardless of whether you may prefer Meer or Hale, yeah I know what the guys that prefer a silent PC are talking about, RPG´s like Fallout, The Elder Scrolls and DAO that have silent protagonists are incredible and allowed a high level of insertion between the protagonist and the player, but Bioware already said that the DA III is going to have a voice one, so instead of worrying about it I would be more concern about theyre choice in actors and actresses, personally for a female protagonist my choices would be Helena Taylor who voice Bayonetta, Jennifer Hale since she is my favorite voice actress but after using her in ME i doubt Bioware may use her again in the near future, my third and final one would be Laura Bailey, saw her in Paragon Lost where she played Kamille and I think she did a good job as for male a character I dunno maybe Brandon Keener (Garrus) or Steven Blum (Grunt) but its just my personal opinion anyway, so frankly i don't care if the PC is voiced or not as long as elements like the content, the gameplay, the Story and if voiced their choice in actors and actresses is good, then the game is ok by me

[IanPolaris]

The primary problem I have with a voiced protagonist is that it automatically limits the protagonist to just a very few (and IMHO cripplingly few) options for a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Ideally I'd like to see 12 options or more (six different backgrounds each with a different gender) but that would be absolutely be impossible with a voiced protagonist unless Bioware wanted to blow all it's money on voice acting alone (which I don't think they do).

That's my big issue with voiced protagonists. I agree that all other things being equal, I'd prefer a voiced character to an unvoiced one, but I want to have the freedom (to a very large degree) in a ROLE PLAYING game to design my character as I see fit with my own background, and I feel that the voiced requirement comes dangerously close to forcing us to play Bioware's character and not our own. I certainly felt this way about DA2. I didn't about ME1 and ME2 (I did about ME3) mainly because it was understood from the start that Mass Effect was a hybrid and not a full-fledged RPG (and so the expectations and audience were slightly different).

All JIMHO

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Hanz54321 wrote...

If multiplayer is mandatory to get the entire story, I'm out.

If they want to give people who MP bonus gear or a decorative pet, I'm fine. But If I missing a part of the lore because I cannot (and I cannot) play multiplayer, I'm out.

But I don't think it will be the case.

Hear, hear!  There must not be a repeat of what happened to ME3 where you had to do Multiplayer in order to get the best reward in the game (Master and Commander Acheivement) and especially not when Bioware LIED about it for three solid months, and finally admitted they did a day before the extended cut came out (and reduced the Shepard Lives threshhold accordingly).

-Polaris

[AlanC9]

IanPolaris wrote...

[ There must not be a repeat of what happened to ME3 where you had to do Multiplayer in order to get the best reward in the game (Master and Commander Acheivement) 
-Polaris

What was so great about that achievement?

[IanPolaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

[ There must not be a repeat of what happened to ME3 where you had to do Multiplayer in order to get the best reward in the game (Master and Commander Acheivement) 
-Polaris

What was so great about that achievement?

It reflected the best possible ending (at least for a lot of people), i.e. Shepard "lives".  It's also so not the point.  The point is that you should not have to play MP to get all possible endings, and especially not if Bioware specifically promises you won't have to.

-Polaris