318 réponses à ce sujet

[ReallyRue]

I like that DA2 linked it to personality. I mean, it makes sense that a more aggressive person would be better at threats than a more gentle person. Or that a gentle person would be better at coaxing than an aggressive one.

However, I don't think that should automatically restrict some of our choices. For instance, you can only help Petrice if you have an aggressive personality (and therefore receive the option of kill a Qunari to prove yourself to Varnell's torture club). That choice should be open to diplomatic and sarcastic Hawkes too. Personality and morality aren't the same thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I read the subtitles.  I typically skip ahead in the cinematics once I've done that. [/quote]
I should clarify that I mean IRL.[/quote]
When I'm speaking to someone, I don't look at them at all.  I typically look at the ground to the speaker's right.

When they're speaking, I tend to look at their faces.  I find I understand speech better if I can see people's lips - that way I can tell what sound they're making even if I don't discern it aurally.
[quote]That's because we're not judging things on the same standard.[/quote]
I still don't know what your standard is.  And yes, I 'm aware you think it's something that can't be explained algorithmically.
[quote]Not at all. In the same way that you don't have to re-learn all of math when you're solving a new problem - even if you've switched from calculus to topology, you don't have to re-create an entire system of social interaction from scratch. Culture and context are the keys.[/quote]
Actually, I find calculus does require that sort of complete rewrite of basic rules.

Also, if I ask a simple math question that uses no digits larger than 7, is the question's framework decimal, or octal?  You'd probably just assume decimal (as most anyone would), but shouldn't that assumption be made consciously?  Wouldn't you want to be aware that you'd done it?
[quote]As I mentioned (later, I think), I agree that the game should provide the player a great deal of information that approximates the kind of information people of different social compencies would gleam from an interaction.

But ever since you've convinced me that dialogue is gameplay, I think that we should develop dialogue to be more like (in principle) combat.[/quote]
I completely agree.
[quote]As I said: there's been no proposal to an RNG that would sensibly capture the dynamic nature of a conversation.[/quote]
Conversations aren't dynamic.  Conversations aren't even real.

Each person's actions and interpretation of those actions stands alone.  Each person acts and reacts dynamically, yes, but I fail to see how that isn't modelled by the game systems we already have unless you presuppose knowledge that isn't available to the individual actors (like the minds of the other actors).
[quote]In turn-based combat, we can say that an RNG is necessary to approximate the dynamic interaction of combat because everything actually happens simulatenously, and without movement restrictions, etc. So the RNG allows the "chaos" of combat to come out, because we actually play the game at a certain level of abstraction.[/quote]
I disagree that's why combat RNGs are important.  I want a RNG is combat to approximate the character's level of uncertainty surrounding outcomes.  If a character swings his sword to hit his opponent, he doesn't know whether that hit will land successfully.  His decision to swing his sword was based on his assessment of the likelihood of landing a blow, and the likely outcomes of both success and failure.  But granting him absolute knowledge of the outcome on which to base his decisions makes his decision-making process far less like real-world decision-making.

And that's exactly what I want from in-character decision-making in dialogue, as well.  And for the same reason.
[quote]But dialogue isn't abstracted in that way. We actually see the full content of the interaction - the body language and speech.[/quote]
That's not the full content.  Each character's state-of-mind is also relevant, and the state-of-mind of NPCs is never knowable.  As such, uncertainty should persist.
[quote]The game can't handle the kind of dynamic outcomes required - because that would require an infinite number of unique reactions, so it instead demands that you nonsensically assume that "magic background factors" can somehow fundamentally alter the nature of a character, even thought their dialogue responses would be identical. It's nonsense.[/quote]
What exactly is nonsensical about that?  A character's reaction to some stimulus in that moment might be affected by:

• His having had a traumatic experience as a child involving some similar stimulus.
• His having been distracted by a wave a nausea arising from having eaten a spoiled egg that morning.
• His mind wandered just then.
• He misheard you.
• Another character told him something relevant off-screen.

Need I go on?
[quote]This is talking about things to generally. Yes, in principle, this is what an RNG does. But it can't actually succeed as proposed for dialogue.[/quote]
Dialogue is no different from combat, in this respect.  Your character does not know, with certainty, whether his decision is a good one.
[quote]No, it makes it worse. Becuase, as I always have maintained, when you have fixed start and end, you only actually have a very narrow range of middles that you can imagine to link the two points and still have all interactions make sense.[/quote]
I deny that the starts are necessarily fixed.  Some of the details are fixed, but all implicit content is not.
[quote]An RNG introduces a degree of stochastic outcomes that are just logically incongruent with what is required from this sort of fixed interaction.[/quote]
Stop presupposing that the interaction is fixed (or even that interaction is a thing that can exhibit characteristics).
[quote]Because the alternative is nonsensical.[/quote]
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
[quote]The amount of game that is fixed by design across reloads is such that it makes it logically absurd to suppose that the other parts could freely vary.[/quote]
Why?

Do you accept that a player character in DAO could plausibly choose to abandon Ferelden to the blight and simply flee to Orlais?  I'm fairly sure you do, so I'm going to take that as given.  But DAO doesn't actually model that choice.  You could design a character who would choose that, but then that character cannot act in accordance with his design.

For the sake of expedience, BioWare simply hasn't modelled all possible outcomes.

Let's now apply that same expedience to our selection of possible universes.  There do exist an infinite number of possible universes, but not all of them are modelled within the game.  In fact, only those possible universes that exhibit the narrow range of characteristics that we see explicitly presented on screen are modelled.  This is the relevant similarity between these possible universes.

And it's also the only necessary similarity.

Only a subset of the infinite variety of possible universes is available within the game, but the available variety is still staggeringly broad - just not on those few details that are fixed by the game's explicit content.
[quote]I also suppose that the world continues to exist in a persistent state when I'm not looking at it, but that belief isn't insane because of the basic physical rules I observe the world behaving according to.[/quote]
That supposition is arguably required in order for you to act.  But many suppositions are not required for you to act, and yet you continue to make them as if you have no choice.
[quote]But it's not the same sort, and it's not the same circumstances. I've already addressed why above - because turn-based combat doesn't pretend to exhaust the the full scope of the interaction.[/quote]
Neither does dialogue.  Again, only if you have exhaustive knowledge of every character's state-of-mind does your approach even begin to make sense.
[quote]That only works if there is actually an unseen variable. But the very nature of dialogue is such that there are no unseen variables.[/quote]
You can't ever know that there aren't unseen variables except inside a fully-defined logical system.  I'm extremely confident you don't think human interaction matches that description.

Inside the game world, these things wouldn't actually be variables at all.  They'd be fixed truths, but they'd be unknown to the PC.  They would, therefore, be variables within the PC's risk-assessment calculatons, but they wouldn't actually ever change within a given universe.

But you, the player, wouldn't necessarily know in which universe your character happened to be on this playthrough.
[quote]If we were talking about BG - for example  - where there is no VO, and no indication of body language, I would concede the point. You can imagine that across characters things like your different body language and tone - even with the same words spoken - lead to a different result.

But a modern cinematic RPG, this is not unseen.[/quote]
Tone and body language is not complete information.  You're presupposing that it's impossible to deceive people, and that's obviously false.  Why do public speaking courses exist?  They teach speakers how to deliver speeches, how to stand, when and how to make eye contact.  If those things are controllable consciously, then they cannot contain meaningful information.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Except that we see it happening, or it doesn't happen.

Explain that to me.  Convince me this is true.

On a related note, is Alistair aware of the conversations between the Warden and Leliana about her shoes?  How does he feel about those?  Does Alistair like Leliana's shoes?  Is he aware she wears shoes?  Is he aware that she has feet?

How about Sten's love for cookies?  What's Alistair's opinion of that?

[Mistress9Nine]

I'd favour a system with seperate skills/talents for roleplaying from combat, so when you level up you don't choose between "Butt kissing III" and "Gut cutting V" rather you can symultaneously upgrade both with a combat tree differing from the interaction tree or whatever. This would provide the possibility for many roleplaying talents, like seduction, bluffing, intimidation, search, horseback riding, banana bread baking, etc; which would give flavour to your character and come in handy in a variety of situations. Also, lots of replay value.

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I only changed my strategy in DA:O because I realized the game does not tell you the Circle's problems while you're at Redcliffe, thus the PC doesn't know about it, thus I was unintentionally metagaming.

Anytime, ANYTIME, that you make a decision about what your character in the game will do that revolves are you using ANY information that said character cannot possibly have at the time of the decision, you are metagaming.

You are particularly metagaming when you allow the "option that seems the optimal / winning option" be the one you pick.

The game isn't making you do that.  You are choosing to do that.

It isn't WRONG, AT ALL, to do this.  But if you, personally, dislike playing this way...

DON'T.

No one is making you.

Having less money, not getting the market discount from Grigori, causing the informant to warn other groups of your presence... none of those things will make you lose the game, fail a mission, any such thing.  Not one.  At the absolute worse it makes things a little bit harder, AT WORST.

You are metagaming your choices, and not even very well because the differences as far as munchkinning is concerned are miniscule.

[9TailsFox]

ReallyRue wrote...

I like that DA2 linked it to personality. I mean, it makes sense that a more aggressive person would be better at threats than a more gentle person. Or that a gentle person would be better at coaxing than an aggressive one.

However, I don't think that should automatically restrict some of our choices. For instance, you can only help Petrice if you have an aggressive personality (and therefore receive the option of kill a Qunari to prove yourself to Varnell's torture club). That choice should be open to diplomatic and sarcastic Hawkes too. Personality and morality aren't the same thing.

I disagree I think it was perfect, it should automatically restrict some of our choices. Like you say you can only help Petrice if you have aggressive personality(I didn't even know what possible of course I would never help her but it's nice to know there is possibility).Or same exemple you if you have Diplomatic personality you can make peace between elf and, human who was werewolf in DA.

[9TailsFox]

Mistress9Nine wrote...

I'd favour a system with seperate skills/talents for roleplaying from combat, so when you level up you don't choose between "Butt kissing III" and "Gut cutting V" rather you can symultaneously upgrade both with a combat tree differing from the interaction tree or whatever. This would provide the possibility for many roleplaying talents, like seduction, bluffing, intimidation, search, horseback riding, banana bread baking, etc; which would give flavour to your character and come in handy in a variety of situations. Also, lots of replay value.

Cheese making don't forget cheese making.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
"Actual gameplay" meaning what?  I do not understand this "I-WIN" button discussion.  Does picking one option really involve more than hitting one button to fire a blast that kills a moving target in Space Invaders? 

Are we talking about space invaders, an arcade game from 1978? No? Huh, how strange.

It's an example, an analogy.  I'm trying to understand this "I-WIN" button concept and the problem with it.  As an example (one of several I use) I cite an older video game.  Is it an arcade game from the 70's?  Sure.  And?  It is still a video game.  I'm asking if that fire button on the console is a "I-WIN" button.

Or are you implying this discussion is only about DA3, a game not even out?  How can we discuss an "I-WIN" button with only that context?  You cannot mean only DA3?

Only Dragon Age games, then?  Only BioWare ones?  What arbitrary limit do you, In Exile, by fiat, wish to declare on our conversation?  I ask not because I believe you should hold any authority on confining the range of examples that can be used... but solely because I'd rather cut down on your non-sequitor snarkiness.  If I make the unholy mistake of talking about "I-WIN" button concept in, say, Baldur's Gate 2, I don't want you crying out how abnormal I am being for talking about a game that was never on consoles or published before 2010 or whatever your next goal-post move will be.

In Exile wrote...
No. Because in a turn-based game there is a significant amount of information processing that's involved before you get to any sort of contrived situation where you can 1-hit KO an enemey. Typically, it requires effectively building (meaning that you have to master multiple number-based interfaces to actually build the character), then taking advantage of the terrain (most likely), and then moreover exploting elemental resistances.

I so want to address this, but I'm wary of giving contrary examples and having your "that doesn't count, that game was in a blue box and not a black box" logic dismissing my points.

In Exile wrote...
If dialogue actually involved this incredible level of involvement from the player, meaning that you had to have hours of gameplay to build a character who could be this capapable, and then had to take advantage of multiple moving parts on the fly to bring about the situation, there'd be no single button to press.

"hours of gameplay to build a character who could one-hit kill"  Huh.  So, if I take the pre-made character in a game and it one-hit kills a rat or kobold or whatever, how does that fit into your scenario?  I'm fairly certain that, in a game like NWN, you give a Wizard a crossbow and he'll be one-shot'ing goblins no sweat.

This isn't complex min-maxing, here.  Most combat in most role-playing games are "swing and dead" with the minority of fights having monsters who can take more than one hit.  There are expections, especially games designed to make fights last longer on purpose so that several blows are always required to kill even the wimpiest of things, but many games through easy-kill "minions" at you.  2E D&D and earlier, for example, may have only let Wizards have a D4 for hit points but those kobolds or rats would have like 1/2 or some such of a hit die as well.  One auto-hit magic missile, one dead beetle.  Are you saying choosing magic missile for a magic user was "incredible involvement from the player and hours of gameplay" or such nonsense?

In Exile wrote...
But New Vegas doesn't do any of this.

Wait, so Bethesda and Obsidian games are fair play for discussing "I-WIN" button then?

Just checking.

In Exile wrote...
The amount of work required to get to a 1-hit KO, is as I said, quite involved.

See above, re: one-hit kill isn't what you make it out to be.

OR, screw it, here comes some examples you can dismiss!

Go buy some SSI games, whether Gold Box D&D or Phantasie or Wizard's Crown.  Pick up Bard's Tale or Wizardry or Might and Magic.

Heck, reload KotOR and see how many hits it takes to get to the center of those starting opponents.  Hint - many go down in one attack.

... to be continued.

Modifié par MerinTB, 13 mai 2013 - 07:49 .

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
1 - Are you against the interrupts in the Mass Effect series as well?

2 - Are you entirely against TellTales Walking Dead series?

3 - How about trivia games?

1 - I think the execution of the interrupts is lacking, but I like the idea  of them - because it adds more ways to  interact with the conversation.

2 - Never played it, as I loathe survival horror.

3 - Are you honestly pretending as if a trivia game is at all comparable to an RPG? This goes right back to the not arguing in a bona fide and straightforward manner.

1 - Interrupts are "push one button, win" scenarios that rely on a Paragon or Renegade stat.  One stat.  A stat that, to get it where you needed it, you just had to keep selecting the upper right (blue colored, I believe) dialog options  or the lower right (red colored, yes) dialog options.  This is hardly complex, complicated, thought-provoking game
design.  It's "hit button, watch cinematic result" which was perfect back in the days of Dragon's Lair and Space Ace.  It's QTE-lite.   How's it not an "I-WIN" button for the conversation?

2 - Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that decision points are timed and largely binary, The Walking Dead game is effectively a slew of "I-WIN" button presses, if I am understanding the concept at all.  There's no player skill or
even character skill involved - you have to make your selection before a timer runs out.  One button press, watch cinematic results.  Greatly loved and excellently reviewed game, and it's all "I-WIN" button presses with some adventure game puzzling solving and a few instances of very limited game-mechanics combat.

3 - I am honestly giving MULTIPLE examples of games where, to succeed at / continue part of the game in a
certain way / direction, you simply make a choice by pushing one button once.  Trivia games (here's a question, here are X number of possible answers--it relies on player skill to KNOW the right one, and you win by pushing the "I-WIN" button  on the right answer) are exactly like dialog interactions in RPGs and adventure games (here's the NPC's dialog, here are you list of X number of possible responses--it can rely solely on player knowledge to pick the most optimal one (if there is a most optimal choice), but in some games they put the added complexity of
the CHARACTER, NOT THE PLAYER, needing to have the skill to be able to give a more complicated answer / give the more complicated answer correctly before the player can click the "I-WIN" button on said response.)

I think the analogy is a remarkably bona fide and straight forward one, honestly.  A bit of text, a list of possible
responses.  A one for one comparable situation.  Trivia games are games, dialog mechanics are like more complex trivia games that SOMETIMES require a character having skills instead of a player, and often don't
have a single correct answer.

In Exile wrote...
Is combat a trivia game in an RPG? No. It has never been. It's recognized as a style of gameplay all on its own.

Really?  Combat not a trivia game, never has been?  Hrm.



Kidding aside - look at how similar the following are:

Trivia -


Combat -



All of those games give you a "what do you choose from this list" situation where it waits until you choose something.  You pick your selection and see what happens, if you chose right.  Now, granted, the combat has more levels of complexity than the trivia game in those choices, but you are hitting one button and then, if you chose correctly, you "WIN."  In the trivia, you win the points or whatever for answering that question correctly.  In the combat, say the Knights of Legend top example, if you choose to swing at the head for your attack, you win if your opponent didn't duck; and if you sidestep for your defense, you win if your opponent thurst at your middle.  If you character has a high enough Foresight stat, you can predict what your opponent's attack and defense are, and then you know for certain which is the "I-WIN" options to push you button on.
I'd give a similar explanation for Bard's Tale, but I think the point is made.

Are there glaring differences between the trivia game and the combat of KoL?  Of course.  What year they were made, just to pick one at random.  But the analogy works on the point I'm making -

that combat can be a trivia game.  Which of these responses works for the given scenario.

And, going a step further with the Foresight and how it works in KoL... it's just like having an Insight or Persuade skill or some such in a dialog that, having said skill high enough, highlights the "optimal' or "I-WIN" choice.

Q.E.D.

In Exile wrote...
So my position is that dialogue should be treated like combat.

Uhm, done.  See above.

Q.E.D.

In Exile wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
If that is your problem, I disagree.  I love using character skill and character knowledge over mine.  Like in D&D (or Pathfinder, if you prefer... or Serenity, a Cortex system game) where you ask the GM about a certain creature or organization, and the GM has you make a knowledge check... and if you succeed he tells you what your character knows.  Because if you character is a resident of said fantasy world, especially if he is an expert on said topic in question, your characer knowing something shouldn't revolve around you, the player, personally having
memorized minutia and errata of a fantasy world.

And yet somehow in combat none of this is acceptable.

All D20 based games have all skill checks work the same.  Whether you are swinging a sword or picking a lock or intimidating a guard, you roll a D20 and add your modifiers, and if you beat a target number you succeed.

Completely acceptable.

Look up Dungeon World.  Combat and non-combat run exactly the same.  You say what you want your character to do, you make a roll based on the move that is (climb a wall, seducing a barmaid, dodging an incoming axe swing) and you succed on a 10+ roll of 2D6 plus modifiers.

Same thing.

You, In Exile, are treating combat as if it is always something different than other actions in games (even role-playing games (even BioWare role-playing games))) and, in many ways, in many contexts, they ARE the same.  I hope you're not suggesting that in a video game combat your success is determined by YOUR (THE PLAYER'S) skill at combat (i.e. how many people can you hack up with an axe), which is the parallel of the "if the player doesn't know the knowledge, his character doesn't know the knowledge" example I was illustrating.

The biggest difference is if the combat is mostly player skill based and real time, but the conversation is mostly character skill based and effectively turn-based (say, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning or Fallout 3.)  So there you have it different, but I doubt you seriously want real time conversations where your mouse and keyboard usage (or analog stick and button manipulations) is similarly reflexes based as combat is.

In Exile wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Same with persuading someone.  In a role-playing game I want to play a character I create, not play me.  If my character is super-smart or super-charismatic, I want the game to represent that and if there is a chance to pick the right choice in a logic puzzle or say the right thing to an interlocutor, I actually prefer the game to use my character's ability and SHOW ME what MY CHARACTER believes to be the right thing to pick / say.

And yet, again, if your character is supposed to be a warrior god, you don't have the same option. You have
to play the wargame simulator no matter what. 

Some games have actiony, real-time combat based on player reflexes, sure.  But many don't.  Many have combat based on character stats and not on your hand-eye coordination.

And there are plenty of games with combat systems where the "right combat manuevers to choose" are indicated for you if you have the right skills.  Knights of Legend and Foresight, again.  Or where having higher stats or certain skills unlock more potent attacks, just like having higher charisma or speech skills open up dialog options that were otherwise unavailable (or, I'd even argue, higher intelligence giving you higher spells or higher strength letting you use tougher weapons is similar to higher barter allowing you to sell items for more gold or higher charisma letting you get bigger rewards for quests.)  Many games really do do this in the same way, In Exile.

Again, unless you are, by your own whim, strictly limiting the games we can talk about.

Modifié par MerinTB, 13 mai 2013 - 03:22 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Do you want to loose the dialogue wheel and return to the point based persuasion check?

Keep the dialogue wheel and something similar to DA2 personality/class dependant persuasions?

A hybrid of sorts were you put points into the skill and have the option appear in the dialogue wheel similar to ME1's paragon/renegade skills? (This is likely my personally prefered option btw)

Loose the element all together?

Something I haven't mentioned/thought of yet?

Your thoughts please.

I liked persuasion in DA:O, but perhaps this is because my main was a warrior who had just enough Cunning/Coercion to be clever, but not enough to be silver-tongued. Thus the whole 'Coercion/Persuade is always Auto-Win' argument was never true for that character. It went both ways, and it was awesome to see the fallout when it tanked.

Anyway, I like the idea of having the possibility of failure even if your character is so Maker-damned gifted s/he could talk Morrigan into doing a strip-tease for Oghren.

Bring back the ol' d20. If you get that Nat 1...'Zap!' Frog time.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 13 mai 2013 - 09:41 .

[Rodia Driftwood]

All I gotta say is that I want the wheel with personality-type options back. I mean the Abrasive/Judgemental-vs-Charming/Witty-vsKind/Understanding-type. It was really cool to develop your characters personality based on what you said.

[zyntifox]

Rodia Driftwood wrote...

All I gotta say is that I want the wheel with personality-type options back. I mean the Abrasive/Judgemental-vs-Charming/Witty-vsKind/Understanding-type. It was really cool to develop your characters personality based on what you said.

It didn't form the personality on what Hawke said but how he/she said it. In DA:O you developed the personality of the Warden by what he/she said.

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I'm not really part of your argument, but...

MerinTB wrote...
Heck, reload KotOR and see how many hits it takes to get to the center of those starting opponents.  Hint - many go down in one attack.

... to be continued.

Really? I must be doing something wrong. Most took me about three hits, roughly.

I reinstalled (from Steam) while I was writing that to double check my memory.  I quick-character'd a soldier, took the first face and random name, sped through the intro-text, equipped my short sword, ran forward and fought the first two groups of guards.

First guy took two hits.  I was like, "Huh, well, I guess I won't include KotOR as an example..." and then I killed the next one with one kick.  "Oh... let's get a larger sample size."  I killed the next two guys in three attacks... only because one attack missed entirely.

I'm not counting misses, obviously (just like I'm not counting, say, the 25% failure chance on a Persuasion check in KoA:R or a Speech check in New Vegas as discounting the "I-WIN" button concept) but successful attacks one-hit killing.

And am just doing it to dispute In Exile's "it takes careful planning and days of playing the game to get your perfectly munchkin'd character to be able to one-hit-kill anything!" hyperbole.

Modifié par MerinTB, 13 mai 2013 - 07:49 .

[Fraq Hound]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What would happen if you turned off subtitles?

I always feel like I'm going to miss something important or hear something incorrectly. I never play a game without subtitles. Especially Bioware games where the conversation, lore, and story is the reason you are playing.

[MerinTB]

Fraq Hound wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
What would happen if you turned off subtitles?

I always feel like I'm going to miss something important or hear something incorrectly. I never play a game without subtitles. Especially Bioware games where the conversation, lore, and story is the reason you are playing.

Also this.  I often mishear what the human voice says, and anytime I can I turn Voice volume to max (say 10) and music, sound effects, and ambiance down to half or less (say 5 or 4) to give me the best chance to hear the dialog.  But in a game that allows for sub-titles, they are ALWAYS on.

For this exact reason.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Text is better. Text is always better.

This has been true ever since the invention of punctuation.

[Bekkael]

I would wish for a Captain Wentworth of my own.

Modifié par Bekkael, 13 mai 2013 - 11:52 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Text is better. Text is always better.

This has been true ever since the invention of punctuation.

A problem with text is that people usually don't use it to its full capability--this happens a bit in text games like DA:O.

Consider KotOR and its use of asterisks * in the place of italics to note emphasis. Did DA:O do this? And even then, it can be parsed down further to emphasizing a particular part of a word--one reason why I occasionally capitalize part of a word to emphasize it.

There are other types of punctuation or manipulation of text that give further meaning that aren't commonly used. ]

Further, text without a cinematic (be it a full-fledged cutscene, or simply a basic picture) loses real-world context--the intro scene to Mordin's recruitment missin involves a three-way conversation that, without the cinematic, would come off as broken and disjointed without explicit play instructions--[TURIAN MERC, TO WOMAN].

The other side of that coin is that our character begins doing these things without any input at all. After a time, it becomes less you having a conversation and more watching how Bioware's character is behaving in a situation. 

Text gives you the option to at least say "Turian Merc, to woman." Though disjointed, it gives player choice instead of being relegated from an interactive medium to a passive one. 

Could this be done better? Sure. In nearly every front - voiced or silent PC. But working on that is not what we have seen from many RPG developers. They have, seemingly all at once, jumped off the silent PC mindset (even though the highest selling Western RPGs in the world have all had silent PCs) and gone with the voiced PC and not been very sucessful at all of capturing the benefits the silent PC brought to the table.

Essentially, it is a different product. A very similar product, to be sure... but a voiced PC RPG and a silent PC RPG are VERY different beasts. Just like many things with DA2, there was very little work done to transplant the fanbase from the old ways to the new. And while it may be tempting to say "deal with it," this isn't just a simple issue of change... it is change without comparable value. So there were no support systems to give all or some of the benefits that the silent PC gives (fluidity in tone, not tying morality or decisions to certain personalities, easier implementation of variable content, etc.). 

That's my problem with Bioware's choice... not that they moved to a voice protagonist. But that they seemed to have zero understanding of why the silent PC had tons of value when they went about their system to implement said protagonist.