335 réponses à ce sujet

[Enigmatick]

MerinTB wrote...

Depends on the game.

Am I making my own character, as in name, appearance, class, race, background, etc?

Then silent, please. Or, if you want to blow the budget, multiple voice actors to choose from with multiple reads of lines with different tones. But, seriously, silent protagonist.

If it is a set character? Voiced is better. You want voiced protagonist, then I say go with a pre-set protagonist. Like The Witcher or Michael Thorton or Adam Jensen.

But if I'm making my character? No voice.

I really think that should be standard.

Thing is that people like to lie to themselves and think that they're still making their own characters. Shepard was as preset as Jensen and so was Hawke.

[MerinTB]

Enigmatick wrote...
 Thing is that people like to lie to themselves and think that they're still making their own characters. Shepard was as preset as Jensen and so was Hawke.

Shepard and Hawke are in this weird middle ground between preset and player created, a very awkward middle.

In many ways that I would argue matter in an RPG, they are preset.  You have little choice on who either are and how they are preceived before you start taking actions.

In some ways that are most cosmetic, they are player created.  Name and appearance, largely.  Your name and appearance have zero effect on the game story.  I'm of the belief that even if it only affects your experience, it IS important, but from how the game design and mechanics work the name and appearance AREN'T important.

Where it gets messy, however, is that you can choose class, abilities, and make story choices that shape your character in both player experience and game story.

Hawke and Shepard, on a strict point by point examination, are more player created than not - but I think that's due to legacy considerations on BioWare's part more than desired game features.  BioWare looks to want to have more control over making more cinematic stories, and have iconic, recognizable art... and to do that effective you need set protagonists.

As much as I prefer creating my own characters, I sincerely wish that BioWare would bite the bullet and just use preset proganoists - even if they still allowed you to choose from a few different characters, mostly to allow different genders, and do away with classes as a whole and go with a classless skill system.  It would allow them to do what they really want to with game and story design.

[Realmzmaster]

In many of Bioware's games the background and background are already written. In BG1 and BG2 you are the Bhaalspawn. You origin and where you come from is set. In DAO you get to pick an origin from the ones given.
IceWind Dale I & II by Black Isle and earlier crpgs allowed creation of the entire party where the gamer could create the background and origin of all party members. Bioware to my knowledge has never done a game like that.

[Ethluene]

I prefer non-voiced because it fits the rpg styles I enjoy (and not only because budgets determine design parameters). Notwithstanding, voiced fit well with the presentation of the Mass Effect trilogy. Both modes fit their style.

Accordingly, and given the success of Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim, as two recent examples, it is premature to announce the death of either mode of presentation.

[PinkDiamondstl]

The voiced PC as already been decided,so this thread is irrelevant

[TsaiMeLemoni]

PinkDiamondstl wrote...

The voiced PC as already been decided,so this thread is irrelevant

This is simply a discussion of preference, not asking/debating what should be in DA:I

[Twisted Path]

I'd argue that Michael Thorton wasn't a preset character and was very much the creation of the player, in some ways even more than Shepard. The thing that sets Alpha Protocol apart is that you're playing a spy and the game goes out of it's way to tell you at the beginning that everything coming out of Thorton's mouth may or may not be a lie meant to manipulate people.

There's a lot of autodialogue and you're constantly choosing between only three emotes, but as the player you can sit there and think "I'm only acting like a suave cowboy because I hate this Marburg guy and want to throw him off his game," or you can intimidate people because of your reputation for being menacing and aggressive but then never actually kill anyone because it's all an act. The limited dialogue doesn't feel stifling because there could be a large number of reasons why you're saying what you're saying and why you're taking the tone you're taking.

That sort of thing gave Michael Thorton a bit more dimension than someone like Hawke. When Hawke uses her angry voice we have no reason to think anything except that she's angry.

Incidentally I think the Alpha Protocol system could work really well in say a fantasy game where you're part of a thieves guild or something like it, and a lot of the dialogue segments revolve around trickery, manipulation and ferreting out information. It just doesn't work for a more straight forward RPG setting.

[Ziggeh]

MerinTB wrote...

Shepard and Hawke are in this weird middle ground between preset and player created, a very awkward middle

I disagree -  I'm looking to incorporate the defined elements of an RPG into the character I'm piloting, be these tone, background or text. 

The more definition available, the more successful this is and provided there are multiple options and multiple interpretations, I wouldn't consider it predefined (though I appreciate there are elements that are, but that these mainly effect what you are rather than who), just that there is more definition available, or imposed, depending on your perspective.

DA2 was far from perfect in this regard - it lacked nuance in it's options, so characters end up being some level of schizophrenic (this should be fine, as people are, but characters generally aren't), but the method, which is more reactive than text (which requires the player to actively construct the character) suited me very well.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 09 juillet 2013 - 08:53 .

[Urazz]

Twisted Path wrote...

I'd argue that Michael Thorton wasn't a preset character and was very much the creation of the player, in some ways even more than Shepard. The thing that sets Alpha Protocol apart is that you're playing a spy and the game goes out of it's way to tell you at the beginning that everything coming out of Thorton's mouth may or may not be a lie meant to manipulate people.

Thorton was a preset character but he was given a bare minimum background so that you can freely choose what you want in choices without things getting jarring.  You can't really change his look at all other than hair style, glasses, and facial hair for the most part and even that was limited.

[MerinTB]

Ziggeh wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Shepard and Hawke are in this weird middle ground between preset and player created, a very awkward middle

I disagree -  I'm looking to incorporate the defined elements of an RPG into the character I'm piloting, be these tone, background or text. 

Absolute preset character - Master Chief, Jade (from Beyond Good & Evil,) Mario, Samus, Heather Mason, (haven't played Uncharted so I'm making a huge assumption here) Nathan Drake.  You don't define anything about who these characters are.  You don't choose anything meaningful in the game to define who there are (giant-sizing Mario, telling Heather to turn left instead of right, or giving Master Chief pistols instead of shot guns doesn't really define character or really amount to role-playing your own character by MOST standards of MOST people.)

Absolute player-created character - your party in Icewind Dale, recruitable characters in Freedom Force, your character in Kingdom of Amalur: Reckoning (I've played this last one a lot but never finished it so I could be wrong about some major preset on who your character is, but I don't think I am.)  Yes, you have to be fantasy styled adventurers in IWD or KoA:R, or a super-hero in FF... but that's an artifact of the game you are playing (a fantasy game, a super-hero game) and not a limitation set by game design to narrow your character into a story path (you must be an Alliance soldier in Mass Effect, you must be the child of Bhaal in BG, you must be a freaking Jedi in Star Wars.)

Hawke and Shepard are clearly in the middle of these two extremes.  Exactly in the middle?  No, of course not.  I said, on points, they lean more towards player created.

[MerinTB]

Urazz wrote...

Twisted Path wrote...
I'd argue that Michael Thorton wasn't a preset character and was very much the creation of the player, in some ways even more than Shepard. The thing that sets Alpha Protocol apart is that you're playing a spy and the game goes out of it's way to tell you at the beginning that everything coming out of Thorton's mouth may or may not be a lie meant to manipulate people.

Thorton was a preset character but he was given a bare minimum background so that you can freely choose what you want in choices without things getting jarring.  You can't really change his look at all other than hair style, glasses, and facial hair for the most part and even that was limited.

Thorton is quite preset, moreso than Hawke or Shepard even (set gender, name and appearance - those appearance alterations are DISGUISES.)

You get a lot of leeway of what training he had prior to joining AP, YES.  And you get an ENORMOUS amount of control over decisions he makes, OH FARGO YES.  

But Mike is Mike.  What happens with Mike in the game is up to you, but he's always Michael Thorton, US military and secret agent for Alpha Protocol.

Modifié par MerinTB, 09 juillet 2013 - 05:30 .

[bEVEsthda]

Realmzmaster wrote...

In many of Bioware's games the background and background are already written. In BG1 and BG2 you are the Bhaalspawn. You origin and where you come from is set. In DAO you get to pick an origin from the ones given.
IceWind Dale I & II by Black Isle and earlier crpgs allowed creation of the entire party where the gamer could create the background and origin of all party members. Bioware to my knowledge has never done a game like that.

I don't think this really makes much of an argument. Our character is the Bhaalspawn, yes, but the race, gender and - most importantly - personality is entirely up to the player to create. Which is why it works as a 'real RPG' (by my definition - which, btw, is the only one I'm interested in, and the only 'type of' RPG I'm interested in playing). The same is true about all bioware games until recently, DA2, ME2, ME3...

I don't think I've encountered a game with a voiced protag, that I've been able to roleplay. It would be fun if I was wrong and am only remembering badly... (and no, I don't really feel TW2 is a 'real RPG', and I suppose that's exactly the reason I haven't bothered to finish it).

Anyway, DA:I is obviously going to have a voiced protag. No point in discussing that particular issue. Certainly no point in presuming that it will be a bad game because of that. Not even any point in presuming that it'll be impossible to role-play the PC in that game. It might work. Role-playing a character, which one is defining, is always a compromise. It always needs a good deal of in-head adjustments and compromise. Having a voiced PC, may increase that amount somewhat, but that's not really the crucial point. It's not even so important. What is important, is that the game doesn't defeat roleplay, makes it impossible, (yes, my version of 'role-play' - though shared with a legion of others - which is the only one I'm interested in). And I'm not so convinced voiced PC must do so.  DA2 did so. But much of that was because the developers thought it would be cute to 'surprise' us. And also because I think they didn't consider for one single moment those players who prefer to play their characters - instead of just 'piloting' and then experiencing them.

At this stage, this discussion is only worth having, if we somehow can help Bioware to make a well designed voiced PC, which doesn't automatically exclude a large part of traditional players, who didn't started playing so called "RPG"s with FF.


But ofc, a great way to go for RPGs, is silent PC. I think there will be a lot of games, in the wake of TES, FO, etc, which will hammer home this point.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 09 juillet 2013 - 05:25 .

[Realmzmaster]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

In many of Bioware's games the background and background are already written. In BG1 and BG2 you are the Bhaalspawn. You origin and where you come from is set. In DAO you get to pick an origin from the ones given.
IceWind Dale I & II by Black Isle and earlier crpgs allowed creation of the entire party where the gamer could create the background and origin of all party members. Bioware to my knowledge has never done a game like that.

I don't think this really makes much of an argument. Our character is the Bhaalspawn, yes, but the race, gender and - most importantly - personality is entirely up to the player to create. Which is why it works as a 'real RPG' (by my definition - which, btw, is the only one I'm interested in, and the only 'type of' RPG I'm interested in playing). The same is true about all bioware games until recently, DA2, ME2, ME3...

I don't think I've encountered a game with a voiced protag, that I've been able to roleplay. It would be fun if I was wrong and am only remembering badly... (and no, I don't really feel TW2 is a 'real RPG', and I suppose that's exactly the reason I haven't bothered to finish it).

Anyway, DA:I is obviously going to have a voiced protag. No point in discussing that particular issue. Certainly no point in presuming that it will be a bad game because of that. Not even any point in presuming that it'll be impossible to role-play the PC in that game. It might work. Role-playing a character, which one is defining, is always a compromise. It always needs a good deal of in-head adjustments and compromise. Having a voiced PC, may increase that amount somewhat, but that's not really the crucial point. It's not even so important. What is important, is that the game doesn't defeat roleplay, makes it impossible, (yes, my version of 'role-play' - though shared with a legion of others - which is the only one I'm interested in). And I'm not so convinced voiced PC must do so.  DA2 did so. But much of that was because the developers thought it would be cute to 'surprise' us. And also because I think they didn't consider for one single moment those players who prefer to play their characters - instead of just 'piloting' and then experiencing them.

At this stage, this discussion is only worth having, if we somehow can help Bioware to make a well designed voiced PC, which doesn't automatically exclude a large part of traditional players, who didn't started playing so called "RPG"s with FF.


But ofc, a great way to go for RPGs, is silent PC. I think there will be a lot of games, in the wake of TES, FO, etc, which will hammer home this point.

The point is that Icewind Dale allowed complete creation of all the characters. The gamer got to roleplay the entire party. Also all the characters and NPCs were silent . The closest you got to voice were the battle phrases. Only the backstory (reason for the party being there was set). I have no problem when everyone is silent. I do have a problem when everyone else is voiced and my character is not especially in places where voice would be appropriate for the PC.

Another point is that in BG1 & 2 you cannot be anything other than the Bhaalspawn (set origin) which is no different than being Hawke (set origin).  Now in DA2 you cannot pick the race. Race has almost no bearing on the Dragon Age games. It t matter very little if the warden was a different race after the origin. Unlike BG2 where race actually mattered because of the D & D ruleset.

Picking a race then actually affect the character's physical makeup. In fact picking a sex actually affect the characters physical characteristics.

Both games allow the gamer to pick class.

I had very little problem shaping my Hawke's personality. You may consider it piloting. I consider it roleplaying by setting into the role of Hawke. And as you stated the only definition that matters is my own and the many gamers who agree with me. There lies the rub.

[AppealToReason]

I'm replaying DAO right now and I wish that the voiced PC would have a dialogue branch like in the game. Persuades, Intimiades, Cunnings, and then a bunch of good/neutral/sarcastic/holy/evil/angry options.

I still prefer the voiced PC but I just want a little more variety

[Wozearly]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Role-playing a character, which one is defining, is always a compromise. It always needs a good deal of in-head adjustments and compromise. Having a voiced PC, may increase that amount somewhat, but that's not really the crucial point. It's not even so important. What is important, is that the game doesn't defeat roleplay, makes it impossible, (yes, my version of 'role-play' - though shared with a legion of others - which is the only one I'm interested in). And I'm not so convinced voiced PC must do so.  DA2 did so. But much of that was because the developers thought it would be cute to 'surprise' us. And also because I think they didn't consider for one single moment those players who prefer to play their characters - instead of just 'piloting' and then experiencing them.

Although I wholeheartedly agree that a silent PC is preferable to a voiced one, I'm not convinced that Bioware made this decision without consideration. Indeed, on more than one occasion, they've flagged the fact publically that this was an area where the fanbase divided almost neatly down the middle into people who preferred a voiced PC and who preferred a silent one.

The conclusion appeared to be that the gains from introducing a voiced PC in terms of new opportunities would be outweighed by the costs and potential risks of doing so. And, as you say, there's no reason in principle why the cardinal problems with a voiced PC can't be mitigated.

Purely from a roleplaying perspective, DA2 managed to feel like it railroaded players to a far greater extent than Origins, and introduced repeated comments along the lines of "this is Bioware's character, not mine" which were relatively unheard of every Bioware franchise with the exception of Mass Effect. Even though, in practice, DA:O and DA2 were not all that far apart in terms of character and RP gameplay choices. 

Which just goes to show that how you do the little things really adds up. So what really matters is the lessons that have been learned for DA:I. On this particular issue, I'm actually fairly hopeful that a good position can be struck to suit both sides of the fan base.

On combat and general game atmosphere for example, I think we're going to see another round of bitter recriminations on the forum no matter what approach is chosen.

[bEVEsthda]

Realmzmaster wrote...
The point is that Icewind Dale allowed complete creation of all the characters. The gamer got to roleplay the entire party. Also all the characters and NPCs were silent . The closest you got to voice were the battle phrases. Only the backstory (reason for the party being there was set). I have no problem when everyone is silent. I do have a problem when everyone else is voiced and my character is not especially in places where voice would be appropriate for the PC.

Another point is that in BG1 & 2 you cannot be anything other than the Bhaalspawn (set origin) which is no different than being Hawke (set origin).  Now in DA2 you cannot pick the race. Race has almost no bearing on the Dragon Age games. It t matter very little if the warden was a different race after the origin. Unlike BG2 where race actually mattered because of the D & D ruleset.

Picking a race then actually affect the character's physical makeup. In fact picking a sex actually affect the characters physical characteristics.

Both games allow the gamer to pick class.

I had very little problem shaping my Hawke's personality. You may consider it piloting. I consider it roleplaying by setting into the role of Hawke. And as you stated the only definition that matters is my own and the many gamers who agree with me. There lies the rub.

I agree with the observations. My point was that the differences between IWD and BG have very small consequences for my type of roleplay. It's insignificant. I still have all the creative freedom that matters. And the reason I made this point was that you expressed your point, as if it should have any meaning for players of my kind - which I tell you it surely hasn't.  

You're also correct in that race has little bearing in DA games,   ...as objectively and as you see it. For my role play I can make it matter as I see fit. It's not so important what the game makes of it. This is maybe a returning theme: For me it matters not so much what the game explicitly expresses, as what it doesn't exclude. While it's apparent from these returning discussions that some players want the game to react for them, I don't really care about that. I'd like the game to override my character's reactions as little and as seldom as possible.

But on that issue, I'm prepared to believe that a voiced PC game can handle it better than DA2 did.

My character always have a voice. So 'voiceless' is obviously never ever a problem for me. Cannot be.

On a previously mentioned example, the PC making a speech, I would think it would be interesting and a lot of fun to stitch together a speech, from various alternative pieces, for a silent PC. A lot more fun than listening to some recorded actor. And it scores 1000-folds higher on my role-play-meter. Actually, listening to a recorded speech is something that doesn't score at all. I totally get that some players want to be moved and whatnot, but excuse me, I fail to see what's different from watching a movie or reading a novel?

And alright, - there's nothing wrong with games of that kind (except of course that I consider life too short to waste on such). And if Bioware wants to, and think they can be, rich on making games like that, then so be it.

But when people claim it's the future of cRPGs, that is not something which I and others are prepared to suffer in silence.

[Wozearly]

bEVEsthda wrote...

But when people claim it's the future of cRPGs, that is not something which I and others are prepared to suffer in silence.

Indeed.

Although I note the irony that suffering in silence is what we want our characters to do instead. :innocent:

[Twisted Path]

MerinTB wrote...

Thorton is quite preset, moreso than Hawke or Shepard even (set gender, name and appearance - those appearance alterations are DISGUISES.)

You get a lot of leeway of what training he had prior to joining AP, YES.  And you get an ENORMOUS amount of control over decisions he makes, OH FARGO YES.  

But Mike is Mike.  What happens with Mike in the game is up to you, but he's always Michael Thorton, US military and secret agent for Alpha Protocol.

True. What I meant was that there was nothing preset about his characterization. There's also a line about Thorton not being his real name. He's a really well crafted cypher. Especially compaired to Mass Effect 3 era Shepard, who's constantly saying what he/she thinks and feels about things without the player's input.

My point is that despite not being able to change his cheekbone width, skin color or gender Thorton felt more like my character than ME3 Commander Shepard did. And of course announcing that "The player character is a liar," at the begining of the game makes it easyer to create that illusion of full character control.

Though yeah, technically it's a preset character. I guess I think more of a Laura Croft when I think of a preset character: predetermined background (where Thorton's was a blank,) and personality and everything.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Silent protagonist = more choice; less linear; better dialog; more customization

More choice (DA:O) > voiced dialog (DA II)

The winner is silent protagonist.

[Urazz]

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...

Silent protagonist = more choice; less linear; better dialog; more customization

More choice (DA:O) > voiced dialog (DA II)

The winner is silent protagonist.

Silent protagonist doesn't necessarily mean less linear game nor does it mean more customization.  All it means is that you have more choices in conversation in what you say but in general a lot of those extra conversation choices are redundant and are the same choice but just said differently.

In actual choices that are actually different, then the two are roughly the same.

[eye basher]

Voiced if i want to watch some clown waving his arms around like an idiot i'll just go watch a mime at least their are funny.

[MerinTB]

Twisted Path wrote...
True. What I meant was that there was nothing preset about his characterization. There's also a line about Thorton not being his real name. He's a really well crafted cypher. Especially compaired to Mass Effect 3 era Shepard, who's constantly saying what he/she thinks and feels about things without the player's input.

My point is that despite not being able to change his cheekbone width, skin color or gender Thorton felt more like my character than ME3 Commander Shepard did. And of course announcing that "The player character is a liar," at the begining of the game makes it easyer to create that illusion of full character control.

Though yeah, technically it's a preset character. I guess I think more of a Laura Croft when I think of a preset character: predetermined background (where Thorton's was a blank,) and personality and everything.

Thorton is a middle-of-the-range guy, too, though I'd argue more on the preset side.

That said, I agree with you that Thorton (all the Thorton's I played, and that's more than the number of Hawke's and Shepard's I played combined!) felt far more like my own character than Shepard or Hawke ever did.

[phantomrachie]

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...

Silent protagonist = more choice; less linear; better dialog; more customization

More choice (DA:O) > voiced dialog (DA II)

The winner is silent protagonist.

Except that it doesn't. Very few Silent Protagonists end up with more dialog really, as voiced characters just say the same thing. And some games with SP get weighed down with dialog - I enjoyed Baldur's Gate but sometimes I was really just going through the dialog options to make sure I didn't miss anything not because I was interested and a player should be interested in what a character has to say to them. It doesn't even mean more customization really. Hawke was voiced and a Human but Bioware could've just as easily given all Hawkes the same voice regardless of race, it was the plot of DA2 that made the choice of race redundant.

[o Ventus]

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...

Silent protagonist = more choice; less linear; better dialog; more customization

More choice (DA:O) > voiced dialog (DA II)

The winner is silent protagonist.

Wow.

I think I may have just found the dumbest comment related to a video game on the Internet. I'm going to take a screenshot of this, scan it, and frame it for my kids to see.

[Wozearly]

Urazz wrote...

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...

Silent protagonist = more choice; less linear; better dialog; more customization

More choice (DA:O) > voiced dialog (DA II)

The winner is silent protagonist.

Silent protagonist doesn't necessarily mean less linear game nor does it mean more customization.  All it means is that you have more choices in conversation in what you say but in general a lot of those extra conversation choices are redundant and are the same choice but just said differently.

In actual choices that are actually different, then the two are roughly the same.

Presuming that, at the very least, the person on the other end of the dialogue responds accordingly (even if the outcome is unchanged) that's actually a massive difference to a number of people from a roleplaying perspective.

Also, both the original statement and your refutal of it presume that DA:O and DA2 are typical examples of each approach. I agree that there's no reason that a voiced PC should lead to a more linear approach and less feeling of player control - however, its far more likely to result in that than a silent PC as there are additional barriers. Equally, the silent PC carries its own set of drawbacks.

However, if I'd seen a voiced PC done really, really well then I'd be far less spiky about it. So far, I've seen some interesting approaches and fairly credible attempts, but nothing that's made me think "You know what, silent PC is truly dead. That was brilliant."