371 réponses à ce sujet

[bEVEsthda]

Railroading is essentially what you are talking about though. 

 

See, my point of view is simple. Its a game. Voiced or silent as a mechanic of a game are really unimportant in the scheme of the plot dynamic, because it is already a chosen plot. The game has a definitive starting and ending point, and parts of the game are populated with specific plot points you need to follow to progress. The differences between Candlekeep and Ostagar are minute in that way,they need to be played to continue the game, you have no control over them.

 

If the "illusion" of that is not delivered the same way, I can see why people may presume otherwise and say it is a different game because of the structure, but this makes no sense mechanically because you are in the confines of the game still. This is going beyond what is needed, superior or what have you. This also goes beyond what you feel is missing; because this is bare bones of the product itself. If you really look at the options between Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age II, for example, a majority of the conversations in each game lead to the same conclusion. The differences come with who you basically choose to ally with or the actions you do. The "tone" of the character, voiced or silent, is the narrative flair that is added to the action for role-playing purposes. 

 

I note that some argue that they have a degree of freedom with silent protagonists vs voiced, which is in a way true. Because you have more options, there are usually more choices, and because of written text you need the whole sentence to discern meaning. However, voiced characters also have the same mechanics. The paraphrase/tonal symbols is used to help discern what the line shall sound like, and from that you can discern not exactly what you say, but how you say it. This is the only difference between the two, and I would agree with you on being different types of games if there was a different reward for both systems because of it. Yet for both, its the same, railed experience. 

 

You still have narrative control of the game in both instances though, which is the key point really. It doesn't matter if there is a voice or not, the entire mechanic is irrelevant on the whole because of narrative control.The real issue it seems is how much narrative control you want, and how much you want to be railroaded through it. If you prefer one way, that's fine, it however is a bit foolish in my mind to call them two distinct styles of games, because they really aren't in the end through base mechanics offered.  It may matter to you personally, but it is not reflective of the reality of their design, hence the illusion always being there.

 

It doesn't really annoy me at all, your explanations. They are actually quite good in the end. I just feel that the whole argument is a circular one because of the underlying similarities of what the games represent.

 

And for the record, my impression was wrong. So sorry. 

 

I see that you have a desire to be "neutral", and I appreciate that, even if I initially found it amusing.

 

But to be fair, from the viewpoint that you look at this, you maybe are neutral. But here's a divider: You look on the mechanics of the game, and how the mechanics of the game are navigated. In this particular discussion - silent vs. voiced - I'm never talking about that aspect of navigating the story. 'Silent' (though of course, it's not just silent protagonist, it's an entire package) doesn't change that. At least not by itself. You're right about that. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the experience of the fiction of the game. You do not have freedom and control of the game, but you do have freedom and control of how to interpret the fiction of the game.

 

And in that regard - while those who consume this as an observer of the protagonist will be completely oblivious to the difference - there is a very fundamental and great difference for those who experience the fiction from, and through, their own character, if the game mechanics break this control of the PC. 

 

And this is very important for many gamers who come from games which support that method. I don't know if you remember the forum details of the calamity after DA2's release, but my point would be that there's no lack of evidence. In any case, it's very important to me. It's the only reason I play these games. So it's not wrong to speak about two different kinds of games.

 

Maybe it can be bridged. Because, rationally, we're not completely sure it requires a silent protagonist. It's not the silent protagonist itself, that is the point.

But I'm pretty convinced that not having the option to mute the voiced protagonist makes the problem worse.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

I believe the answer to your last question hinges on whether or not you want the NPCs to have minds of their own. Its like you can only know someone so well. You can never know exactly what another person will do in every situation. This is where realism is desired in games.

This has nothing to do with the NPCs. I'm talking about the PC. And he should only have a mind of his own insofar as I give him one.

I don't care what the NPCs will do. And I actually want their behaviour to be unpredictable.

But the PC should literally never surprise me.

[bEVEsthda]

I'd love to know how they chose those test subjects.

 

 

It's somewhat OT, but isn't that such a wonderful and colossal mystery?

 

Bioware's very crazy "test group" which they claim has given them all the right answers. Who exactly are these strange persons?  And where did they find them?

[Sylvius the Mad]

And in that regard - while those who consume this as an observer of the protagonist will be completely oblivious to the difference - there is a very fundamental and great difference for those who experience the fiction from, and through, their own character, if the game mechanics break this control of the PC.

And this is very important for many gamers who come from games which support that method. I don't know if you remember the forum details of the calamity after DA2's release, but my point would be that there's no lack of evidence. In any case, it's very important to me. It's the only reason I play these games. So it's not wrong to speak about two different kinds of games.

If you'll recall, even BioWare used to draw the distinction. Ray Muzyka described DAO and ME as two different kinds of RPG. He called DAO "first-person", and ME "third-person". In ME, the was expected to observe Shepard more than inhabit him, and in DAO the opposite was true.

I vastly prefer the first-person approach.

BioWare no longer acknowledges the difference, because it wouldn't serve their marketing objectives to do so, but that doesn't change the facts.

[LinksOcarina]

I see that you have a desire to be "neutral", and I appreciate that, even if I initially found it amusing.

 

But to be fair, from the viewpoint that you look at this, you maybe are neutral. But here's a divider: You look on the mechanics of the game, and how the mechanics of the game are navigated. In this particular discussion - silent vs. voiced - I'm never talking about that aspect of navigating the story. 'Silent' (though of course, it's not just silent protagonist, it's an entire package) doesn't change that. At least not by itself. You're right about that. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the experience of the fiction of the game. You do not have freedom and control of the game, but you do have freedom and control of how to interpret the fiction of the game.

 

And in that regard - while those who consume this as an observer of the protagonist will be completely oblivious to the difference - there is a very fundamental and great difference for those who experience the fiction from, and through, their own character, if the game mechanics break this control of the PC. 

 

And this is very important for many gamers who come from games which support that method. I don't know if you remember the forum details of the calamity after DA2's release, but my point would be that there's no lack of evidence. In any case, it's very important to me. It's the only reason I play these games. So it's not wrong to speak about two different kinds of games.

 

Maybe it can be bridged. Because, rationally, we're not completely sure it requires a silent protagonist. It's not the silent protagonist itself, that is the point.

But I'm pretty convinced that not having the option to mute the voiced protagonist makes the problem worse.  

 

If it always boils down to subjectivity of what we all feel is better or worse, which is what you are basically saying above with personal interpretation of how much freedom you have, then I should simply bow out because there is no point of even pointing out anything from a neutral stance. It will never be neutral in anyone's minds.

[LinksOcarina]

If you'll recall, even BioWare used to draw the distinction. Ray Muzyka described DAO and ME as two different kinds of RPG. He called DAO "first-person", and ME "third-person". In ME, the was expected to observe Shepard more than inhabit him, and in DAO the opposite was true.

I vastly prefer the first-person approach.

BioWare no longer acknowledges the difference, because it wouldn't serve their marketing objectives to do so, but that doesn't change the facts.

 

Or perhaps they believe the difference is a moot point. That is assuming a bit there, but then again so are you by saying it's a marketing objective. 

 

I also personally think Muzyka is wrong in the assertion as well regardless, but thats personal opinion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's somewhat OT, but isn't that such a wonderful and colossal mystery?

Bioware's very crazy "test group" which they claim has given them all the right answers. Who exactly are these strange people? And where did they find them?

I've participated in a lot of focus groups (because I have idiosyncratic opinions and I want them heard), and in my experience they're assembled in an attempt to be a broad cross-section of the population.

[UniformGreyColor]

This has nothing to do with the NPCs. I'm talking about the PC. And he should only have a mind of his own insofar as I give him one.

I don't care what the NPCs will do. And I actually want their behaviour to be unpredictable.

But the PC should literally never surprise me.

 

I agree, though I reread my previous post as saw that I mixed up the order regarding who I should be surprised by. I will edit the previous document to give understanding. To clarify: I don't mind possibly being "surprised" by how my actions, as the protagonist, play out. If I knew everything that was going to happen both before and during my playthrough I wouldn't find much enjoyment out of discovering anything. At the same time, I find it difficult for a game to give the illusion of choice -especially when it comes to how my verbal choices will affect the storyline.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Or perhaps they believe the difference is a moot point. That is assuming a bit there.

I also personally think Muzyka is wrong in the assertion as well regardless, but thats personal opinion.

As bEVEsthda and I demonstrate, the first-person approach worked for some players, but only in the silent protagonist games.

No one yet had claimed it works with the voiced protagonist.

[LinksOcarina]

As bEVEsthda and I demonstrate, the first-person approach worked for some players, but only in the silent protagonist games.

No one yet had claimed it works with the voiced protagonist.

 

See...the issue stems from people saying it does for them, you just disagree with them. They may not adhere to the same ideals of what you consider good or bad, but people have convictions and opinions as to why they may prefer voice vs. silent for their own reasons or assertions.

 

Or am I the only one who notices that? 

[bEVEsthda]

This was regarded as a desirable feature? You see me completely flabbergasted. Do you recall the reason they gave for that?

 

It may very well have been a consequence of carelessness, than an intentional feature. But they didn't mind it. (before the storm)

 

From what I remember of the interview, the doctor never said it was an intentional feature. He merely expressed how fun and great he found it to be. Itself not a rare opinion. I've seen the same expressed many times here on the forum, by persons describing why they found DA2 and Hawke so superior to DA:O and the Warden.

[bEVEsthda]

If it always boils down to subjectivity of what we all feel is better or worse, which is what you are basically saying above with personal interpretation of how much freedom you have, then I should simply bow out because there is no point of even pointing out anything from a neutral stance. It will never be neutral in anyone's minds.

 

Yes. Essentially. But I'm somewhat puzzled.

Chess is not played in order to have a subjective experience. But videogames most certainly are. If you don't, then you're quite special and belong to a minority that is infinitesimally small.

 

Also, I don't quite like how you formulate that, "personal interpretation of how much freedom you have". That's not quite it. It is a matter of having a certain experience. I mean like this: What if you went to see a movie, and instead of screening the movie for you, a narrator walks up on the stage, and tells of the plot and what happens in the movie? Are you OK with that? Because you want to be neutral or objective? I mean, you got the story anyway, didn't you?

[bEVEsthda]

Double post. 

[Mirrman70]

I feel like the difference isn't so much as voice versus non voice but DA:O's Warden vs DA2's Hawke. DA:O was the story of the warden who was capable of being highly customized, whereas DA2 was the story of Hawk much like how ME was the story of Shepard. I feel like as you make a Protagonist "nameless" and "customized" you make it more capable of translating your desired overall "tone" onto it. The character will never completely be fully customized regardless of voice or no-voice. the voice no-voice argument ends in a subjective view of how strongly you think a voice affects your ability to project your intention into the character.  BioWare most likely came to the decision that by giving a voice to the character most individuals will see it as either a plus or as a non-negative.

[LinksOcarina]

Yes. Essentially. But I'm somewhat puzzled.

Chess is not played in order to have a subjective experience. But videogames most certainly are. If you don't, then you're quite special and belong to a minority that is infinitesimally small.

 

Also, I don't quite like how you formulate that, "personal interpretation of how much freedom you have". That's not quite it. It is a matter of having a certain experience. I mean like this: What if you went to see a movie, and instead of screening the movie for you, a narrator walks up on the stage, and tells of the plot and what happens in the movie? Are you OK with that? Because you want to be neutral or objective? I mean, you got the story anyway, didn't you?

 

Chess is also a game which has no subjectivity to it. The goal is to beat the opponent with the pieces you have, the pieces can only move a specific way, and the rules are concretely standard.

 

We are dealing with something inherently more complex though,in particular story-driven games which have interpretation to them. Thats what make RPG's unique for one thing. You say it's about having a certain experience, the thing is, that is your experience based on the mechanics in the end, despite the mechanics being inherently similar as I said before. 

 

For argument's sake, if someone had the opposite experience entirely, finding the voiced protagonist more engaging, they have that certain experience that would fit into the example you give right? We do agree that this is basically the opinion of the person playing, even leaving out all the similarities the mechanics have at this point, yes? Is it any different then from personal interpretation?

[bEVEsthda]

You say it's about having a certain experience. The thing is, that is your experience based on the mechanics based on what you have said thus far.

 

For argument's sake, if someone had the opposite experience entirely, finding the voiced protagonist more engaging, they have that certain experience that would fit into the example you give right? We do agree that this is basically the opinion of the person playing, even leaving out all the similarities the mechanics have at this point, yes?

 

I'm happy that you understand this now as much as you do. There are - to polarize it - two different ways to experience it.

That's what I've said all the time.

 

But those two ways are not symmetrical. Not at all. And this is the very reason why those who experience it (let's call it:) 'the observer way', are usually completely unaware of the magnitude of difference, or even that there is a difference. And this is why S t Mad and I, amongst others, are banging our heads against a brick wall of incomprehension, of those who constantly question us and vehemently deny that our version exists or matter. So no, I wouldn't say that "they have that certain experience that would fit into the example". No. They all the time exhibit strong evidence of not having the slightest clue. That is not to say that they don't like the voiced protagonist better. They do, of course.

[AlanC9]

"People" isn't a thing. There's no such thing as "people".
Some individuals didn't like it. Fine. I can't understand them, but fine. But some of us need that feature.
I'd love to know how they chose those test subjects.

Right. Would you prefer "Bio believes, based on their research data, that most players prefer..... ?

It does occur to me that the tone of the spoken line might be even more jarring if you've already read the line. If you read it with a certain delivery, and the spoken line doesn't match that delivery, that could be a problem. So perhaps giving players the line creates in them the same dissonance I already have with the voice.
But if the solution is to take away vital information, then the cure is worse than the disease. If anything, this only serves to demonstrate what a terrible idea the voice was.

This sounds like a good setup for preference cycling. With three options -- unvoiced PC, voiced with paraphrase, and voiced with full text -- you can get into situations where you can't easily determine which one is best, depending on how subjects rank their preferences. Although it's also possible that voice/paraphrase just blew the other options away.

[LinksOcarina]

I'm happy that you understand this now as much as you do. There are - to polarize it - two different ways to experience it.

That's what I've said all the time.

 

But those two ways are not symmetrical. Not at all. And this is the very reason why those who experience it (let's call it:) 'the observer way', are usually completely unaware of the magnitude of difference, or even that there is a difference. And this is why S t Mad and I, amongst others, are banging our heads against a brick wall of incomprehension, of those who constantly question us and vehemently deny that our version exists or matter. So no, I wouldn't say that "they have that certain experience that would fit into the example". No. They all the time exhibit strong evidence of not having the slightest clue. That is not to say that they don't like the voiced protagonist better. They do, of course.

 

I always understood that. I just disagree on it being asymmetrical. But as I said before there really is no point for me to say anything. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

See...the issue stems from people saying it does for them, you just disagree with them. They may not adhere to the same ideals of what you consider good or bad, but people have convictions and opinions as to why they may prefer voice vs. silent for their own reasons or assertions.

 

Or am I the only one who notices that? 

They say they prefer it.  This I concede.

 

They do not say it allows this specific playstyle.  Some will argue that it allows the same playstyles, but those people don't agree that the silent protagonist allowed the playstyles I insist it does.  Some will say that it allows for equivalent playstyles, which isn't the question I'm asking.

 

I'm asking if anyone thinks that the voiced protagonist allows the playstyle I describe for the silent protagonist.  And no one does.

[UniformGreyColor]

I'm happy that you understand this now as much as you do. There are - to polarize it - two different ways to experience it.

That's what I've said all the time.

 

But those two ways are not symmetrical. Not at all. And this is the very reason why those who experience it (let's call it:) 'the observer way', are usually completely unaware of the magnitude of difference, or even that there is a difference. And this is why S t Mad and I, amongst others, are banging our heads against a brick wall of incomprehension, of those who constantly question us and vehemently deny that our version exists or matter. So no, I wouldn't say that "they have that certain experience that would fit into the example". No. They all the time exhibit strong evidence of not having the slightest clue. That is not to say that they don't like the voiced protagonist better. They do, of course.

 

Look, I know I'm just a small fry in this conversation and that I probably don't know much about where you are coming from as an old school gamer, but tbh, that kind of elitist attitude is usually something Dev try to avoid for single player games like DA. And that's not to say I totally disagree with your premis for what you want in a game. I've never played D&D and wasn't playing RPGs when I was 14 years old but I'm smart enough to know that that is where it originated and I think you guys somewhat have a point. I started my RPG career playing JRPGs so I have a completely different outlook that you guys do. I wasn't even playing PC games until about 3 years ago. But I think that a voiced protagonist can and will be implemented in a way that the majority of RPG players will enjoy. It just looks like you guys keep saying the same thing. "I experience the protagonist as an extension of my own imagination." I have no problems with that and I think that Devs need to account for you guys and you know what? I think they actually have considered your demographic and want to keep you guys as fans of new and upcoming RPG video games. It just looks like some of you guys are portraying that the way you play the game is the ultimate in Role Playing and thats what I have a problem with. And I know you guys are either going to outright ignore me or come up with something like "I'm not trying to influence the way other people play the game." If that the case why do you keep going on about how the way you play the game is so much richer and more enjoyable and that other people can't even comprehend how imaginatively rich my inner world is? TBH I do the same thing, I just have a different way of living out my fantasies than the way you guys do. I like to see it and hear it and experience it like its happening in real life. I want it to be something I can tangibly see and experience, and I don't think that makes me any less of a Role Player than you guys.

[bEVEsthda]

Look, I know I'm just a small fry in this conversation and that I probably don't know much about where you are coming from as an old school gamer, but tbh, that kind of elitist attitude is usually something Dev try to avoid for single player games like DA. And that's not to say I totally disagree with your premis for what you want in a game. I've never played D&D and wasn't playing RPGs when I was 14 years old but I'm smart enough to know that that is where it originated and I think you guys somewhat have a point. I started my RPG career playing JRPGs so I have a completely different outlook that you guys do. I wasn't even playing PC games until about 3 years ago. But I think that a voiced protagonist can and will be implemented in a way that the majority of RPG players will enjoy. It just looks like you guys keep saying the same thing. "I experience the protagonist as an extension of my own imagination." I have no problems with that and I think that Devs need to account for you guys and you know what? I think they actually have considered your demographic and want to keep you guys as fans of new and upcoming RPG video games. It just looks like some of you guys are portraying that the way you play the game is the ultimate in Role Playing and thats what I have a problem with. And I know you guys are either going to outright ignore me or come up with something like "I'm not trying to influence the way other people play the game." If that the case why do you keep going on about how the way you play the game is so much richer and more enjoyable and that other people can't even comprehend how imaginatively rich my inner world is? TBH I do the same thing, I just have a different way of living out my fantasies than the way you guys do. I like to see it and hear it and experience it like its happening in real life. I want it to be something I can tangibly see and experience, and I don't think that makes me any less of a Role Player than you guys.

 

Appreciated. But if you look closer at what happens in this thread, you would observe that I and others are mainly explaining ourselves to those who continues to question us, and, I would say, often deny us. Several posters quite stubbornly claimed that the way we play and experience these games, can't be done. Or isn't. Or is no difference.

 

So I don't accept that we have any 'elitist' attitude. Surely we must be allowed to defend our playing style? It's not S. t. Mad or I who have been on the borders of throwing insults. It's not we who are saying " - shh, you are irrelevant". It's not we who are questioning the other playing style. It's our playing style that is under attack and is discussed. Not the other.

 

As for you experiencing the games the way you do, is of course fine. And you will have what you want. DA:I will have voiced protagonist.

 

I also like to believe that Bioware have learnt something from DA2. Strictly, it's not the fact of the voice itself, that is the central problem. The problem is if something breaks our - if you want - 'illusion' that the protagonist is our character. Just because it's a voiced protagonist, things don't have to be as bad as in DA2. Also, how sensitive or insensitive we manage to make ourselves, will also be a factor.

[UniformGreyColor]

Appreciated. But if you look closer at what happens in this thread, you would observe that I and others are mainly explaining ourselves to those who continues to question us, and, I would say, often deny us. Several posters quite stubbornly claimed that the way we play and experience these games, can't be done. Or isn't. Or is no difference.

 

So I don't accept that we have any 'elitist' attitude. Surely we must be allowed to defend our playing style? It's not S. t. Mad or I who have been on the borders of throwing insults. It's not we who are saying " - shh, you are irrelevant". It's not we who are questioning the other playing style. It's our playing style that is under attack and is discussed. Not the other.

 

As for you experiencing the games the way you do, is of course fine. And you will have what you want. DA:I will have voiced protagonist.

 

I also like to believe that Bioware have learnt something from DA2. Strictly, it's not the fact of the voice itself, that is the central problem. The problem is if something breaks our - if you want - 'illusion' that the protagonist is our character. Just because it's a voiced protagonist, things don't have to be as bad as in DA2. Also, how sensitive or insensitive we manage to make ourselves, will also be a factor.

 

First off, I think that the way you guys play the game is totally doable and does show that you have a very active sense of what your illusion means to you. And by saying that it probably looks like I am saying that I don't play the same way you guys do and to an extent, I probably don't play the game exactly the way you guys do cuz, lol... I totally get it. As far as the elitist mentality that I mentioned I saw, I think that that was based on what I thought you think about the way you play games. The idea behind this is that you are trying so hard to make a distinction in the way you play a game vs. the way everybody else plays a game. Lets be fair, its probably more accurate that everyone plays the game in a different way and wants different things in a game, however slight, it often gets magnified and to some degree, blown out of proportion. You make the distinction that you don't want anything to break the illusion you have about a character and then in the same sentence (hyperbole) say the way other people play the game is by pure observation, and thats just totally ignoring the difference that everyone plays the game a little bit differently to different degrees of immersion and doesn't stress enough that different people want different things in a game and I think you would agree with that.

 

To answer the OP, No, this game is not BG and that should be obvious. There are a lot of similarities and a lot of differences but I can't comment too much on that cuz I've never played BG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Right. Would you prefer "Bio believes, based on their research data, that most players prefer..... ?

Yes. That would be clearer.

Then we could ask why they were building a game for most players, rather than including adaptable features which could accommodate even more.

Like letting us mute the protagonist. Or seeing full text. These are low cost options which would improve the same for a minority of players, and the majority need never see them.

[SmilesJA]

No, and I don't expect it to be anything like Baldurs gate.

[UniformGreyColor]

Yes. That would be clearer.

Then we could ask why they were building a game for most players, rather than including adaptable features which could accommodate even more.

Like letting us mute the protagonist. Or seeing full text. These are low cost options which would improve the same for a minority of players, and the majority need never see them.

 

Its a solution. What's your theory on why they don't implement this?