335 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Ziggeh wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The proof is in sales, Shevy. 

That would only be true if the only difference between the games were the silence or otherwise of the protagonist. You can only make that statement if there aren't confounding variables. And there are many.

I'd argue that the intense use of resources and the imposition of development limitations of the voiced protagonist can directly inhibit the creation of other features and design choices in other games, making them better. 

So in that light, the inclusion of elements like crafting, non-combat skills, divergent quest lines, a wide variety of reactions by NPCs (aside from your companions), day and night schedules, NPC interaction outside of scripted events, customizable equipment, changes and reflections of in-game decisions, etc. are all bonuses that can be seen from the simplified and cheaper development process that a silent protagonist brings. I've yet to see a party-based RPG with the type of mechanics that come standard in a silent protag RPG. 

[Conquerthecity]

While most people on this forum want to approach the PC as their own character, I don't really do that. Hawke, The Warden, and The Inquisitor can never be mine because they exist in a universe that is not of my creation. And it's not due to some lack of creativity. If I want to make my own character and their story and universe, I'm perfectly capable and have done so for years.

That said, it's probably obvious I prefer voiced.

[Ziggeh]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd argue that the intense use of resources and the imposition of development limitations of the voiced protagonist can directly inhibit the creation of other features and design choices in other games, making them better. 

So in that light, the inclusion of elements like crafting, non-combat skills, divergent quest lines, a wide variety of reactions by NPCs (aside from your companions), day and night schedules, NPC interaction outside of scripted events, customizable equipment, changes and reflections of in-game decisions, etc. are all bonuses that can be seen from the simplified and cheaper development process that a silent protagonist brings. I've yet to see a party-based RPG with the type of mechanics that come standard in a silent protag RPG. 

I'd say much of that is correlation. The type of RPGs that tend to have voices also tend to have streamlined elements, rather than it being the cause of due to resource limitations. 

Comparing resources is never going to be terribly productive as again, they're generally incomparable. X writing/VO acting = Y Art assets is kind of horrifically reductive.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 23 juillet 2013 - 03:09 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I'd disagree. Focusing entirely too much on voice acting and art assets is the problem. They ramshackle writing to a complete lack of flexibility. An all-silent game can have lines re-written and changed on the fly, with entire scenes playing out differently with just a day's worth of work. If you suddenly have to account for actor positioning, lip synch, bringing in VAs (for both local and international recordings) amongst a host of other things, it suddenly becomes a scenario of "it will only change if it absolutely has to." This leads to things like reactivity or a fluid sense of narrative being shelved.

Originally in DA:O, there was nothing special about the Grey Wardens in fighting the Darkspawn other than the fact that they knew where a magical weapon was that could be used to kill the Archdemon. It wasn't changed to be a part of the tainted blood and required a sacrifice until midway through development. Many people say the Dark Ritual/Ultimate Sacrifice aspect of the endings were one of the best twists in the story... a twist that might not have happened if the writing team was told "we've already spent the budget on the VA, animations and localization work for the scenes we've made. Cutting that and changing things will waste work, time and money - we're sticking with it."

I'm not saying that did, does or would happen... but it is a reality when you are dealing with higher production values. The smallest details need to be worked out months, if not years, in advance, otherwise they are too expensive/time intensive to add in later. Which limits the writing team to not make any changes or, if they do, limits them in how they can integrate those changes across the entire finished product.

All of the "wouldn't it be cool if" ideas are usually scrapped first in such a high-cost development cycle, simply because zots are limited and getting the basic framework of things is too difficult and expensive as it is. The problem is that many RPG fans hang their entire experience on those cool features or in the small details of what the game does or acknowledges.

[Ziggeh]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd disagree. Focusing entirely too much on voice acting and art assets is the problem.  

Well, ya, it increases the costs of certain elements of production and that has consequences. But that's not really related to my point at all.

[Psykohamster]

Fast Jimmy, you're making some assumptions and forgetting a few things. First of all, you're assuming that companies wouldn't be willing to go back and make changes if a good enough idea comes along. Since a lot of the cutscenes nowadays use the game engine rather than cinematics, I don't think it would cost as much to change as you think it would. As for voice actors, games should not be bringing them in until almost everything else is done/set in stone anyway. Furthermore, unless you are advocating no voices at all, in your example of script changes you would still have to add/change lines from the non-protagonists such as Duncan (for the ritual) or Riordan (for the sacrifice) and add in the extra animations for said characters. I just don't think changing the script with a voiced protagonist would be much more expensive than with a silent one. In the end it just comes down to which option people find more enjoyable.

Modifié par Psykohamster, 23 juillet 2013 - 04:33 .

[Plaintiff]

"Higher production values" relative to what? Besides the protagonist, DA:O was fully voiced, including extremely minor characters you pass on the street that can't even really be interacted with. All they did for DA2 was hire two extra voice actors, most likely for the same as it cost to hire the rest of the principal cast.

It's not really an enormous expenditure in the grand scheme of things. Nor would it make it significantly more difficult to  make changes late in development.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 23 juillet 2013 - 05:13 .

[Fast Jimmy]

In the end it just comes down to which option people find more enjoyable.

Again, I'd disagree.

I say its about what people will agree to sacrifice. Players who find the voice protagonist more engaging to the story and their character find that paramount to losing reactivity to choices, more dynamic gameplay systems, ways to have many different ways to play the game (as opposed to combat, combat, combat as an example).

It's an exchange. More cinematic elements or more video game elements - that's the trade off. The more you make something like a movie, the harder it becomes to deliver the mechanics found in games.

Again, I'm open to challenge, but I'd like to see some examples. Can anyone show me a party-based RPG that is fully voiced and cinematic that also has things like non-combat skills, divergent content based on choice, the ability to play different personalities with your character? To my knowledge, they don't exist. While I know it is a logical fallacy to state that because something doesn't exist, it can't exist, we still have plenty of developers out there with no one ever truly pulling it off. That has to speak some level of credence to the argument.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 juillet 2013 - 04:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The proof is in sales, Shevy. 

That would only be true if the only difference between the games were the silence or otherwise of the protagonist. You can only make that statement if there aren't confounding variables. And there are many.

Granted.

But the other side of the argument - that the majority favours a voiced protagonist - hasn't advanced any evidence at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

I might buy this if the alternative was a silent world DA rather than a silent protagonist DA.

I would be more accepting of the former than the latter, as consistent and providing any actual notable benefit by the freeing of zots. Otherwise I'm skeptical there is any giant difference aside from player experience.

Then I'd still by default prefer fully voiced because I know exactly what that benefit will be, rather than some nebulous "other stuff!" that would definitely leave me skeptical if a company were to change gears mid-way and remove something with only a promise of unknown benefits. I think we've had this experience before...

Even if all of the rest remains the same, I would still prefer a silent protagonist to a voiced protagonist.  I don't need to realise other benefits from saved zots, because the silent protagonist itself is a benefit.

That said, silence isn't a benefit in and of itself.  Silent protagonist tend to give me greater control over them, which is why I prefer them.  A voiced protagonist that gave me that same level of control would be excellent.  I just don't see how to make that work, and it certainly hasn't yet appeared in any games.

The loss of player control that has, so far, always accompanied the voiced protagonist, is too high a cost to pay for any feature, regardless of benefits.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

The original comment about everyone positively favoring voiced protagonist were unfounded and empty, yes.

Countering one unfounded and empty claim with another is no better, though.

I completely agree.

But someone coming into the thread late might think that the rebuke of Jimmy somehow bolstered the other side, unaware that the other side barely even exists.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Granted.

But the other side of the argument - that the majority favours a voiced protagonist - hasn't advanced any evidence at all.

Nor really could they. I can't think of a way such a statement could be proven. It's rhetoric in both cases.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Granted.

But the other side of the argument - that the majority favours a voiced protagonist - hasn't advanced any evidence at all.

Nor really could they. I can't think of a way such a statement could be proven. It's rhetoric in both cases.

Yes, it is.

It is thus much more useful to discuss the actual features of each design, rather than their supposed popularity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If these recent titles have demonstrated anything, it is that they still don't have the capacity to voice the game fully. What they're doing, in order to voice the game, is remove great swaths of player control.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

Is any of that control something tangible in the game that I might agree with, or is it all still in the infinite phantom tone options?

It's the literal text (the full line), as well as the phantom tone.

I'm aware you don't value the phantom tone (though I can't fathom why), but surely not having the character literally contradict your intended meaning is valuable.

[MerinTB]

I think, while you don't have proof of preference for one over the other, the market bears that both silent and voiced protagonist are acceptable to gamers in general...

and that silent protagonist is NOT a deal breaker, as games like Skyrim sell gangbusters.

Modifié par MerinTB, 23 juillet 2013 - 05:30 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

They keeping saying they're working on improving the level of agreement between the lines and the paraphrases for DA:I. I'd love to know how, but I imagine they'll show us when they're ready.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

I think, while you don't have proof of preference for one over the other, the market bears that both silent and voiced protagonist are acceptable to gamers in general...

and that silent protagonist is NOT a deal breaker, as games like Skyrim sell gangbusters.

Have any voiced protagonist RPGs sold anywhere near as well as Skyrim?

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
I think, while you don't have proof of preference for one over the other, the market bears that both silent and voiced protagonist are acceptable to gamers in general...

and that silent protagonist is NOT a deal breaker, as games like Skyrim sell gangbusters.

Have any voiced protagonist RPGs sold anywhere near as well as Skyrim?

My internet research skills / google-fu is failing me atm -

I've got this:

Top selling XBOX RPGs -

Fable, KotOR, Morrowind

Top seling PS2 RPGs -

Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy XII

Top Selling PC RPGs -

Diable III, Diablo II, Diablo

Top Sellin PS3 RPGs -

FF XIII

So take that for what you will - I don't think my information is THAT up to date on some of that, looking for Skyrim numbers now...

Got this - don't know how reliable - http://www.statistic...s-v-statistics/



So if that is AT ALL accurate, over ten million sold, with about five millon on 360, just under three million on PS3, and about one and a half million on PC.

Probably makes Skryim best seller on 360, roughly second best seller on PS3, but doesn't place for PC.

IF those numbers are accurate.

Modifié par MerinTB, 23 juillet 2013 - 05:57 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

The Final Fantasy series has a shot at beating Skyrim. Otherwise, if memory serves me correctly, Skyrim is the highest selling game ever dubbed with the title of being an RPG. Besides maybe Call of Duty: Black Ops.