35 réponses à ce sujet

[Deran2]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Just because people have low standards doesn't mean a game/book/film/show or any other kind of media is good.

EDIT:
There was plenty of voice over work in the 90s for video games though it was understandable that some didn't, but a video game where the main character doesn't talk today is a gigantic step backwards.

Low standards? Seriously? Sorry, kid, but your opinion isn't the only one that can be right. Silent PCs have been part of the RPG experience for a long, long time and it always worked fine. It works fine now as well. Gordon Freeman  doesn't speak at all and yet the story for the Half-Life series (yes, its a FPS, but bear with the example) is still engrossing and people still want to see what he does next and where it takes them. Why? Because Valve adds a number of small touches here and that that make you feel like you are Freeman. With DAO you essentially are your character. Mass Effect is much, much more guided do to the voices. Not having voices allows far more freedom with dialog and actions. Having a voiced PC removes most of them as it would be very expensive and time consuming to get VAs to record all of the possible conversations that a game like DAO or older CRPGs have. Having a voiced PC worked for Mass Effect, but it wouldn't for every RPG.

PS: I'm sure you aren't a kid, but your wording sounded rather childish so I I'm calling you out on it.

Modifié par Deran2, 16 janvier 2010 - 07:33 .

[Stengahpolis]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Vaulin Faust wrote...

ME1 took me about 24...

Umm, did you do a completionist playthrough? Because that sounds impossible, unless you own the PC version and did a cheat or 2. In order for me to get everything done, it takes me between 32-35 hours.

Yes, your opinion is fact and if you can't do something it's impossible.


Anyway, I feel having the PC voiced really limited the amount of dialog choices they could give the player. However, I don't feel it hurt ME much because it's more of an action game than an rpg and you're really playing Bioware's character more than *your* character. The main problem I have with ME's dialog is that quite often what is on the wheel is completely different to what Sheppard actually says.

Modifié par Stengahpolis, 16 janvier 2010 - 07:38 .

[ZelaineGW]

I really don't think adding two more dialog options for a few critical decision would be that big of a deal.



Something like saving or killing the queen could really go both ways depending on motives.



If I remember correctly in KOTOR there were a few options where you could say something but there was a [lie] in brackets. Or you could say it without the brackets. That's all I'm talking about really.

[Dave of Canada]

ZelaineGW wrote...

For example I really wanted to save the Rachni queen for renegade reasons (believing she would terrorize the universe, not buying the song bit).

I also wanted to save the council for renegade reasons (now they owe me their lives and I can use that as leverage to manipulate their races and the council)

You seem to assume that Renegade = evil.

[Stephenc13]

i like the voice acting

[izmirtheastarach]

Stephenc13 wrote...

i like the voice acting

I too also as well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

You can't possibly be serious.

I'm more than serious.  I'm adamant.  ME's dialogue system is a threat to RPGs generally (note how Alpha Protocol is already copying it).

Somebody made a point in their blog back at the end of 08 or early 09 about how most sensible people can't relate to a silent protagonist.

That doesn't even make sense.  If I created the character, I know EVERYTHING about him.  I don't need to relate to him, because I'm solely responsible for populating his brain.  His beliefs, values, and goals are entirely my doing.

There's no need to relate to him.  I am him.

Do you even play games for immersion?

I play games to roleplay.  I create a character and then I take actions on his behalf.  The implentation of the voice in ME actually prevented that because Shepard could say and do things I hadn't anticipated.  In order to roleplay properly, I need to know (and knowledge requires certainty) that this thing Shepard is about to do (as a result of my choice) is wholly consistent with every action Shepard has taken previously and every action Shepard will ever take in the future.  And that's impossible in ME because you don't even know that you'll be able to avoid obviously contradictory paths.

Shepard having a voice gives the players a connection and a much more vested interest in him/her. How could you prefer a mute? NPCs doing the talking for us is NOT the same.

The voice on its own doesn't matter.  What matters is that to accommodate the voice we're never given full information about what the available options entail.  Even the sentence types were sometimes inconsistent (I'd choose a dialogue option that was an imperative statement, and Shepard would make a declaration instead).  Shepard would make assertions I didn't think were true (and thus Shepard, if I'm truly playing him, can't think are true either).

This repeated cognitive dissonance absolutely destroyed roleplaying in ME.  Shepard wasn't my character.  Shepard wasn't a character I understood at all.  Shepard wasn't a character over whom I had any control.  If you want to appeal to immersion, you've picked the wrong fight, because there's no way any reasonable person could possibly find playing ME to be an immersive roleplaying experience.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 janvier 2010 - 08:50 .

[HiroVoid]

Rm80 wrote...

I have always wonder why there is no option like: - Im not going to decide yours, nor the rachni futrue so I will just keep you here in your little prision and send some one over from the council or something to decide.....

I'm pretty sure if you didn't purge the Rachni, the company there would nuke, missle, whatever it was the entire facility, so leaving basically meant the Rachni Queen would die in the end.

[Br0th3rGr1mm]

ZelaineGW wrote...

And not BioWare assumed motive, but player chosen motives.

For example I really wanted to save the Rachni queen for renegade reasons (believing she would terrorize the universe, not buying the song bit).

I also wanted to save the council for renegade reasons (now they owe me their lives and I can use that as leverage to manipulate their races and the council)

All you would have to do is add more options in the dialog box.

Frankly, those aren't really valid motives that the writters would consider....for the following reasons:

None of the original Sheherd backrounds were Insane Psyco Evil Mastermind, so it would make no sense for him to want to "terrorize the universe".  The game is NOT an open ended sand box world where you should be able to play out your childishly moronic "kill everything" fantasies....

Shepherd wasn't an idiot either, so why would he ever think that saving the council would gain him any kind of "leverage" over the council?  Gratitude would go about as far as a pat on the back and some sort of medal....even your "recomendation" at the end of the game for who should run the council is brushed aside shortly after the game ends.  Face it...Shepherd is a grunt in the millitary and he knows just how high on the food chain he stands.

[DPSSOC]

Br0th3rGr1mm wrote...

Face it...Shepherd is a grunt in the millitary and he knows just how high on the food chain he stands.

And who he has to shoot to move up.

[Vertrucio]

It's too much work to do so. It adds an exponential amount of short term and long term outcome permutations to the script and scripting that have to be hand edited to work.



The last game that did this regularly was Planescape Torment, and even they limited motives to lying about things or telling the truth, which ME sometimes does.



Also, in ME2, Shepard's motives are always the same, save the galaxy, and by extent, humanity, at all costs.