I don't care about gay or straight romances, cinematics or lore or crap. Good tactical combat, full party control and customisation and proper RPG mechanics are what I care about. Does Inquisition have these or has BioWare abandoned oldschool grognards like me?
I certainly hope so.
But really, as long as it stays away from being ME3, it should be okay.
I don't think I insist on it. I prefer it, obviously. And I try to encourage through my actions here, both by explaining how they can be used, or pointing out all of the unmentioned features and gameplay options we lose when new features are added.Forgive me if this sounds offensive in any way but why do you insist on companies making games catering to your specific style of play then? And don't say to create consistency because Devs can only make a game consistent internally as opposed to how consistent games are from a previous time period to the current one.
I do not. P&P is multiplayer.Sylvius, do you P&P?
I don't find the silent protagonist games limiting at all. I think they mimic real world conversations just about exactly.Because that seems like the best option for what you look for in an RPG. That's the only thing that can give you the amount of control you seem to want over your character, since even silent-protagonist type games have limits on how you can imagine your reaction based on the words. Not being snarky here.
Best Fathers Day gift ever.Sylvius the Mad does P & P. In fact I remember in one of his posts I believe a family member gave him a new set of the reprinted D & D 2.0 rules.
Broadly accurate. I don't feel the need to explain all NPC reactions, however. My characters might, though, depending on their personalities.Actually many of the older crpgs gave Sylvius the kind of control he is looking for and they also allowed for emergent gameplay and story.
Sylvius roleplays his characters by selecting the line that fits the character he envisions and assigning the tone to the line irrespective of what the writer's intent may be. Therefore the reaction that the NPCs have will be seen as a misinterpretation of what his character said or the reaction will be in line with what the character intended. (Correct me if I am off base Sylvius.)
You're a bit older than me. My first was Questron, but I went back and hit the old ones (I recently found an Android port of Oubliette, from 1977, so I've been playing that on my phone).Also Sylvius has been keeping his eyes (as I have) on many of the Kickstarter projects like Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2 etc. I started playing crpgs before Ultima 1 (I started with Colossal Cave Adventure, Eamon and Sword Thrust)
Sylvius the Mad does P & P. In fact I remember in one of his posts I believe a family member gave him a new set of the reprinted D & D 2.0 rules. Actually many of the older crpgs gave Sylvius the kind of control he is looking for and they also allowed for emergent gameplay and story.
Sylvius roleplays his characters by selecting the line that fits the character he envisions and assigning the tone to the line irrespective of what the writer's intent may be. Therefore the reaction that the NPCs have will be seen as a misinterpretation of what his character said or the reaction will be in line with what the character intended. (Correct me if I am off base Sylvius.)
Also Sylvius has been keeping his eyes (as I have) on many of the Kickstarter projects like Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2 etc. I started playing crpgs before Ultima 1 (I started with Colossal Cave Adventure, Eamon and Sword Thrust)
Also DAO as Sylvius has stated before did not greatly hinder how he wanted to play and roleplay the game. DA2 was a different story. He will have to wait like all of us to form an opinion of DAI.
No Bioware game has been open world even DAI will not be open world like the Elder Scroll series.
Thanks Sylvius. 
I played older CRPGs, so I know what he's talking about and how it's possible. Not as far back as things like Ultima, as they predate me. But even they had limits not imposed by P&P. No program can totally simulate direct human input. That was all I was saying.
And as I've said, I understand his RP style, and how it doesn't work as well with voiced protagonists. It just differs from my own style. Not totally, I do those sorts of things too. I just don't find the given tones and voicing to interfere with my internal narrative as much as Sylvius. I also find I am able to imagine the tone as different than I heard it if I need to, without totally breaking me out of my immersion. It's like a tonal autocorrect in my head. 
For me the loss in immersion from that is more than made up by the amount of immersion increase I get from the cinematic style and having my character be able to interact equally with the other characters.
Games like DA:O or NWN2 are actually at the low point of immersion to me, where other characters can speak and move like people, but I can't. It creates a separation between me and everyone else in the game world, and results in a bit of dissonance. I personally feel voiceless protagonists only work with more rudimentary character models incapable of doing their own acting. Once it reaches DA:O levels of detail and animation, people silently staring plunges everything to the bottom of the uncanny valley. It either needs to be all the way one way like Baldur's Gate (even NWN) or older, or all the way the other like the more recent BioWare games. With the former, I can imagine all the interaction, with the latter I can see it. Either one I like. The middle is an awkward adolescent phase.
Overall though, I think this is the right direction to take. I think the combination of cinematic storytelling and interactivity is where video games can truly shine and stand out from other media. The RP'ing sucks me in, the acting carries me away. I'm a sucker for big cinematic moments like the end of, say, ME2. Having those moments happen in my head is nice, but being able to see them is even better. But in the end, the interactivity will always be second to P&P's, the cinematic depth will always be second to film's, and the prose will always be second to books'. Instead of trying to do any of those better than their respective "pure" (lack of a better word) medium, they should generally (not always) hover in a zone between all those. Video games are like a mix of all other storytelling media, and have the best chance to touch audiences when they embrace. Certainly YMMV, and there are plenty of people who disagree (such as Sylvius), or at least disagree where that center is, but that's how I see it. So for me, BioWare's mix of RP and cinematic storytelling hits pretty close to my sweet spot. I don't mind the deficiencies. I can fill them in in my head. 
I do not. P&P is multiplayer.
I don't find the silent protagonist games limiting at all. I think they mimic real world conversations just about exactly.
Truly can't tell if that first is a joke. 
Especially after Realmzmaster's post. I understand the sentiment though. I'm terrible at P&P, and stopped playing at the beginning of high school. I tried again for one game session back in college, but I just couldn't do it. I'm too self-conscious to act things out and RP in front of other people.
Hmm. You must have different conversations than I do. I find even in well-written silent protagonist games that I have to suspend some level of freedom in what my character would actually say. But regardless, as I said in my other post, programs still can't match the freedom of direct RP with other people. Writers just can't anticipate every desired response. But I guess they don't have to. They just have to do it well enough. It's up to the player to decide where that line is for them personally.
EDIT: Why was this so full of typos and errors? I swear my writing ability has plummeted recently.
Yes.
This conversation started because I was pointing out the deficiencies of the voiced protagonist, and the response was that the silent protagonist had comparable deficiencies. This is important, as the response concedes the deficiencies of the voiced protagonist.
I then showed how some of the supposed deficiencies of the silent protagonist can be overcome by adopting a more roleplaying-centeic playstyle.
Some people might not want to do that, and that's fine, but that's not a fault of the system. It is not a flaw in a fishing rod that it is ineffective at hunting ducks. If you want your fishing rod to be useful, you should maybe try to fish with it.
But couldn't this very argument be used also against your position, or basically any position on the protagonist in the story? As your argument seems to be that those people who find it one approach more enjoyable should just change how they enjoy their games? So how would it be different for me to suggest that you change your approach to role-playing the character to such that you can enjoy a voiced protagonist?
When playing DAO, I really didn't care much for the Warden, as she always felt really lifeless to me as she was just someone who stood around silently and blankly while everyone else around her was speaking and visibly interacting with the world. Hawke, on the other hand, felt more like a character to me, someone who had a role in the discussion and who interacted with those around her. That is a very simplistic and condensed version, as those differences in perception are more thoroughly explained in other threads and isn't the actual point of my response. The way people enjoy and experience games can be very different, as has been shown in many discussions, and sometimes, like in this case, those ways cannot co-exist in the same game. You cannot have both a voiced and a silent protagonist, so a choice has to be made, and Bioware chose to go with the voiced protagonist, which really fit with their long-term design philosophy.
Now pushing for a silent protagonist is completely fine, if that is what brings joy in the game, but I take some exception on the argument that the other side should just change their preferences or that their preferences are somehow flawed. Yeah, voiced protagonists have limitations as do silent protagonists. Admitting that doesn't make that preference any less valid. Sure, if the people who liked voiced protagonists completely changed their approach to gaming, they might enjoy the silent protagonist more, but why on earth should they? Or is that even possible? Could you just instantly change why you enjoy the games you enjoy?
And as for your fish rod comparison, isn't that actually your current issue? Bioware has been pushing notably towards a more cinematic experience for a long time and they have been open about that in several interviews. If they created a system in DAO that you were able to twist suit your play style due to the inherent limitations of the system, if their new system was closer to their original intentions and consequently no longer supported twisting the system in the way your approach required, isn't it then your issue of wanting the system to be something never was? And thus arguing that that fishing rod is bad at hunting ducks? And let's be clear on this, there has been not one dev interview that I have seen that supports the argument that they wanted the intents for the dialogue lines to be left to the players imagination.
What are you talking about?
There is no "different" from within the game. Your character speaks, and the NPCs respond. There's no basis for comparison across multiple reaction events except from a metagame perspective.
To illustrate that, let's assume for a moment that you can decide yourself what the tone is. So the PC speaks with whatever tone you decide. Then the NPC reponds. There's nothing about that NPC response that can tell you you're wrong about the tone, partly because I don't think the reactions are meaningful in that way, but mostly (and this would be sufficient on its own) because we're assuming it is true. We're taking the tone as a given, and interpreting everything else through that lens.
And if we do that, the tone CAN'T get contradicted. We're basically living in a thought experiment. And I'm really good at thought experiments (perhaps because I largely perceive the world as one), so this works for me.
In the real world, do you rely on the reactions of others to tell you how you said something? I certainly don't. So why would I do it in a game?
Just so I understand you, to go back to my example of sarcasm, you're saying that, if you imagine my character is being sarcastic and the NPCs react as if you're being serious, you interpret this to mean they don't get sarcasm or similar, and from that base your understanding of their personalities?
Which would be fine if the NPCs only interacted with you. But they don't. They also interact with each other. And when they show a clear understanding of sarcasm when speaking with each other, but fail to do so when speaking to you, the only reasonable conclusion is that your character is not being clearly sarcastic no matter how you imagine him to be speaking.
The Warden walks into a chantry and starts talking to someone. I feel like imagining him shouting the text presented to me at the top of his voice. No-one reacts. No-one even turns to look at this idiot shouting his head off in a sacred place. That is not a logical response to someone walking into a Chantry and shouting. The resident templars might not necessarily throw him out, but he'd at the very least get some disapproving looks. And yet, nothing. The game does not react in any way shape or form to me imagining the Warden shouting. The logical conclusion: again, not matter how much I imagine my Warden to be shouting he is not because if he was it would lead to serious logical inconsistencies in game.
In the real world, I know how I'm speaking. In a game, without the ability to select the tone I'm using, I'm forced to use the reactions of others to judge the tone, because simply imagining the tone to be what I want leads to inconsistencies and illogical responses from NPCs.
I'm not claiming that the tone doesn't matter (though given the frequency with which my tone is misinterpreted in the real world, I do wonder). I'm saying that the apparent relationship between your tone and the reaction of your listener is sufficently tenuous to support the immersive playstyle I describe.
You don't have to play that way, but I do, because it works for me. And I've explained in great detail how others could do the same, if they wanted.
Things is, I can't see how your way of playing can work, for me at least, as it leads to too many inconsistencies in the game world. It basically requires that I'm imagining NPCs reacting differently from they way the game presents them as reacting.
Yes.
This conversation started because I was pointing out the deficiencies of the voiced protagonist, and the response was that the silent protagonist had comparable deficiencies. This is important, as the response concedes the deficiencies of the voiced protagonist.
I then showed how some of the supposed deficiencies of the silent protagonist can be overcome by adopting a more roleplaying-centeic playstyle.
Some people might not want to do that, and that's fine, but that's not a fault of the system. It is not a flaw in a fishing rod that it is ineffective at hunting ducks. If you want your fishing rod to be useful, you should maybe try to fish with it.
Oh I certainly agree that both options have deficiencies. I just don't agree with your so-called "roleplaying" approach solves those of the silent protagonist. To me, it only works if you ignore how people in the game respond both to you and others. At which point, why not just pretend that Hawke is saying what you want instead of what he's actually saying? Where's the difference?
That said, I'm not trying to stop you playing the way you do, I just don't think your method makes much sense, and I'd rather Bioware didn't go back to what I perceive as a deeply flawed system just because some people are able to rationalise to themselves a way around it's limitations.
Sort of. I won't typically draw any conclusions at all unless I have to. I'm aware I can't actually know the minds of others, so I don't waste my time trying.Just so I understand you, to go back to my example of sarcasm, you're saying that, if you imagine my character is being sarcastic and the NPCs react as if you're being serious, you interpret this to mean they don't get sarcasm or similar, and from that base your understanding of their personalities?
When you are doing this, are you trying to break the game?The Warden walks into a chantry and starts talking to someone. I feel like imagining him shouting the text presented to me at the top of his voice. No-one reacts. No-one even turns to look at this idiot shouting his head off in a sacred place. That is not a logical response to someone walking into a Chantry and shouting. The resident templars might not necessarily throw him out, but he'd at the very least get some disapproving looks. And yet, nothing. The game does not react in any way shape or form to me imagining the Warden shouting. The logical conclusion: again, not matter how much I imagine my Warden to be shouting he is not because if he was it would lead to serious logical inconsistencies in game.
Sort of. I won't typically draw any conclusions at all unless I have to. I'm aware I can't actually know the minds of others, so I don't waste my time trying.
When you are doing this, are you trying to break the game?
I think you're misusing the word "logical" here, as well. A logical conclusion is one you must draw. You cannot help but draw it, as the premises prove it to be true.
Is that what you mean?
While I'd admit, that example is not something I'd personally do when roleplaying, it's not something unrealistic. I've met plenty of people who will talk at the top of their voice even in a church or similar. And if that's a realistic type of person, what's wrong with someone wanting to roleplay like that? And yet if you do roleplay like that, imagining your character doing that, the game does not react in any way shape or form to you doing it, despite the fact (and yes, I do mean fact) that people do react to behavior like that.
And yes, I do mean logical conclusion. Given how the game reacts, or in this case, doesn't react, the only conclusion that can be drawn, the one that is inevitably drawn, is that your character is not using the tone that you imagine they are.
You're welcome to try.But couldn't this very argument be used also against your position, or basically any position on the protagonist in the story? As your argument seems to be that those people who find it one approach more enjoyable should just change how they enjoy their games? So how would it be different for me to suggest that you change your approach to role-playing the character to such that you can enjoy a voiced protagonist?
Whereas, I find the opposite. I can only ever truly know a character I get to play in depth. That's why I don't like the DA2 companions as much - I didn't get to spend as much time customising and headcanoning them. I feel like I know the BG and KotOR companions a lot better, even though they have vastly less content.When playing DAO, I really didn't care much for the Warden, as she always felt really lifeless to me as she was just someone who stood around silently and blankly while everyone else around her was speaking and visibly interacting with the world. Hawke, on the other hand, felt more like a character to me, someone who had a role in the discussion and who interacted with those around her. That is a very simplistic and condensed version, as those differences in perception are more thoroughly explained in other threads and isn't the actual point of my response.
I think thay conclusion requires some unnecessary assumptions about the universality of human behaviour.And yes, I do mean logical conclusion. Given how the game reacts, or in this case, doesn't react, the only conclusion that can be drawn, the one that is inevitably drawn, is that your character is not using the tone that you imagine they are.
I think thay conclusion requires some unnecessary assumptions about the universality of human behaviour.
Given how humans behave in the game and in reality, I don't see how they're really assumptions. More like reasonable conclusions drawn from the experience.
I often hear about the greatness of Baldur's Gate, which I've yet to experience, but I never hear anything about Neverwinter Nights. Is that game not considered a classic or something? I started with Knights of the Old Republic, and have enjoyed every BioWare game after it, but I don't know much about their early games.
Neverwinter Nights was kind of a weird bird because it was almost more of a toolset than a game. It had some fun points but the expansions were much better-written than the main campaign that the game shipped with. It also wasn't a tactical RPG of the Baldur's Gate style--the only character you could directly control was your PC. It was a lot more like Mass Effect than Baldur's Gate.
I think people get overly nostalgic about the BG series, as great as it was. It had very limited roleplaying compared to games like Fallout 1 and 2, Planescape:Torment and Arcanum, which I don't think have been surpassed for roleplaying to this day (though FO:NV is possibly their equal).
What do I consider important in an rpg? At the core of roleplaying, as I see it, lies the ability to control who your character is, mainly through controlling their value hierarchies, ideological preferences, personality traits and behaviour patterns. Some of these primarily exist in the character's minds, so they do not always need to be expressed explicitly, but I must be able to play my character consistently, which means I must be able to consistently avoid actions or statements that would contradict my vision. Having options to express my character explicitly is obviously very desirable and makes for a better roleplaying experience, which is why PST, the Fallouts and Arcanum are way better RPGs than the BGs, but the BGs left space for me to imagine my character, and supported roleplaying, sometimes explicitly but almost always by omission, which is why they qualify as an RPG beyond the combat mechanics, and which is why the ME games increasingly don't as you go from ME1 to ME3.
That means, voiced lines do not necessarily present a hindrance, as long as I have an appropriate option to choose in every conversation. Instead, the elements that can completely destroy roleplaying in a game are autodialogue and paraphrasing. Autodialogue, obviously, because I have no control over what my character says, and if it's against my vision I can't avoid it. Paraphrasing, because - as I've repeated ad infinitum - words do matter and mean different things to different people, and I am unable to make an informed decision about what my character's going to say if I don't know the exact phrasing.
Those things were not a topic in the older games because of technical limitations. Cinematic presentation of character interaction and fully voiced protagonists didn't exist so there was no need to synchronize voice and visuals or even give a protagonist's line a defined tone beyond what's implicitly present in the line - which, as opposed to what promoters of paraphrasing claim, is almost always reasonably unambiguous if you want it to be.
Many people like the cinematic presentation. I do, too. Generally, I wouldn't want to go back to the older style (though I've become a backer for PoE because I want a game without the limitations imposed by the presentation once in a while). But I am very aware of the roleplaying elements that have been sacrificed for that. Conversation design in rpgs is now subject to the rules of screenwriting which means it inherits all its problems, including things like lack of depth, increased stereotyping and focusing overmuch on emotion. We now have fewer conversation options as a rule because voice acting is more expensive than wriiting. That is extremely regrettable but I'm willing to live with it because it's largely unavoidable - as long as I can still avoid statements incompatible with my vision of my character. If game manufacturers put in the effort and resources to present as many choices as in the older games, I'm going to commend that effort because these days it takes more effort and resources than it used to. However, I am not giving the same consideration to paraphrasing, because IMO it is completely superfluous and imposes artificial limitations that could be easily avoided. As I see it, paraphrasing is the single worst new feature added to roleplaying games since 1996 (which was the year roleplaying in video games was redefined by Fallout 1), because it affects every single conversation you're going to have in a game. In a game with paraphrasing, I am generally unable to roleplay meaningfully until I have memorized all options that exist with their spoken lines.
So....no, in general I don't want my games to be like the BGs. I want them to be like Fallout 1 and 2, Arcanum and Planescape:Torment, presented in a modern style but with all their exemplary roleplaying intact. I wonder if I'll ever see the day that happens.
You're welcome to try.
But I take my stance because I think I'm showing the silent protagonist to be better at accommodating this roleplaying approach. I haven't found anyone yet who claims that the voiced protagonist allows for the level of control that I'm claiming the silent protagonist does.
No, we try over and over to explain to you that the SILENT protagonist doesn't allow for the "level of control" that you're claiming it does, either. Because it doesn't, and it has its own share of limitations and oddities. All you do is announce that you prefer the limitations and oddities of one style over another and then insist that it's (somehow) "better" because you don't mind those limitations and oddities--therefore they don't exist.
Calling it "control" is absurd. It's not control to be able to imagine something and then ignore the fact that it has no effect whatsoever on the game itself. Nor is it a LACK of control if some aspect of the game design inhibits you from these imaginings. Imagination != control. Imagination is imagination. I don't announce that because I can sit at the wheel of a toy car and freely turn it that I control the toy car better than I control a real car that is parked and the wheel locked so that it doesn't turn freely. I "control" neither--they are immobile. My yanking at the wheel is not causing anything to happen, not even if I really get into it and start making honking and vroom vroom noises.
Silent or voiced protagonist, you have exactly the same degree of control over *the game*--you pick from a list of developer-written options, and the developer-written results occur. If you find that hearing the PC speaks inhibits you, this isn't a lack of control over the game--your control over the game is *exactly* the same as it was before. This is a lack of control over your mental functions. Which is fine--nobody's obligated to force themselves to enjoy something. That would be silly and a waste of time to boot. However, treating your internal reaction as identical to an external mechanical change is nonsensical.
Now, DA2 did have some *actual* reductions in control. Persuasion (a skill you could choose to take or not take, using points) was replaced with specialized tone options, which required you to adopt a particular "dominant tone" (itself incredibly difficult to judge, as it was a numerical aggregate that wasn't recorded anywhere so good luck knowing what your tone was unless you picked every single tone option as the same type). Some options were companion-dependent, and not in the Origins way where you could have a different reaction if a companion was present, but that some major interactions could play out entirely differently if certain companions were present (such as if Anders was present when you took your sibling into the Deep Roads). That was fundamentally different from maybe a humorous line of dialog or Morrigan shouting at someone to get out of your way. You also couldn't change the armor on your companions, or the race of your PC--quite a few things. These were *actual*, *mechanical* reductions in control. Voiced protagonist was not (although, in some cases some of the ways they WRITE for the voiced protagonist may be, because they have a tendency to put in at least some dialog where you don't get to pick options--at least in Origins if your character said it, you clicked on it, even if it was just "go on").
But couldn't this very argument be used also against your position, or basically any position on the protagonist in the story? As your argument seems to be that those people who find it one approach more enjoyable should just change how they enjoy their games? So how would it be different for me to suggest that you change your approach to role-playing the character to such that you can enjoy a voiced protagonist?
When playing DAO, I really didn't care much for the Warden, as she always felt really lifeless to me as she was just someone who stood around silently and blankly while everyone else around her was speaking and visibly interacting with the world. Hawke, on the other hand, felt more like a character to me, someone who had a role in the discussion and who interacted with those around her. That is a very simplistic and condensed version, as those differences in perception are more thoroughly explained in other threads and isn't the actual point of my response. The way people enjoy and experience games can be very different, as has been shown in many discussions, and sometimes, like in this case, those ways cannot co-exist in the same game. You cannot have both a voiced and a silent protagonist, so a choice has to be made, and Bioware chose to go with the voiced protagonist, which really fit with their long-term design philosophy.
Now pushing for a silent protagonist is completely fine, if that is what brings joy in the game, but I take some exception on the argument that the other side should just change their preferences or that their preferences are somehow flawed. Yeah, voiced protagonists have limitations as do silent protagonists. Admitting that doesn't make that preference any less valid. Sure, if the people who liked voiced protagonists completely changed their approach to gaming, they might enjoy the silent protagonist more, but why on earth should they? Or is that even possible? Could you just instantly change why you enjoy the games you enjoy?
And as for your fish rod comparison, isn't that actually your current issue? Bioware has been pushing notably towards a more cinematic experience for a long time and they have been open about that in several interviews. If they created a system in DAO that you were able to twist suit your play style due to the inherent limitations of the system, if their new system was closer to their original intentions and consequently no longer supported twisting the system in the way your approach required, isn't it then your issue of wanting the system to be something never was? And thus arguing that that fishing rod is bad at hunting ducks? And let's be clear on this, there has been not one dev interview that I have seen that supports the argument that they wanted the intents for the dialogue lines to be left to the players imagination.
Let's be clear about one thing. This is not about S.t Mad. He's just careful to only speak for himself, and he's very conscious of what he's doing and how he's doing it. I'd guess part of the reason for the latter, is the amount of silent vs voiced debate he's participated in the last years.
But this is not just S t mad. A very large part of the RPG audience prefer silent protagonist. They may not be as acutely aware of why, but they typically do know that the voiced character "is not their character". Watch the guy in the previously posted video, for example, who asks the developers about silent protagonist.
IMO, the situation behind this is that it's really two different audiences. And two different genres of games. To consolidate them into a single genre and a single audience would seem daunting task, but is it?
On one hand you have the watch-interactive-movie audience. Everybody who comes from a jRPG background relate to these games that way. Because that's the only way to relate to jRPGs. That's the argument that wRPGs is a different genre. In that case it's understandable why these games are called "role playing games", because that's the tradition they came from. The early PC games didn't have much explicitly defined at all. The player automatically created everything inside his head. In a way similar to how we create things when we read a book for instance. And even as these games became more defined, they were very careful to leave the protagonist entirely to the player. So a lot of the players experienced these games from the perspective of a character created inside their heads. BG came from this line, and so did most of Bioware's audience, prior to DA2, ME.
Here's another thing I want to say. I have absolutely zero interest in interactive-movie type of games. Zero. The only reason I play RPGs is to experience my character's story. I never finished PST, because it felt indifferent to me. I never finished TW2, because it felt indifferent to me. Life is too short to waste on things which aren't interesting. I'd rather play with a flight simulator than play an interactive-movie. And I haven't touched a flight simulator in like decades. If I want a story, I read a book. They're like crazy much better than games for stories. I get that some people want a more active and animated protagonist in the movies they're watching. Who wouldn't, if that was how you related to the game? But I have no interest in these games except for providing me an opportunity to roleplay a character.
Then Bioware pooped in the blue cupboard. DA2. I have this sort of conviction that one big reason for the vast amount of hatred this game generated, was that people couldn't play it like they used to. Whether they were consciously aware of that the reason was the voiced Hawke or not. There are other things which will generate hatred of course, the change in art direction for one. But people hated Hawke. Still do. People coming from a jRPG background, though, typically don't. To me, at least, it has seemed very obvious here on the forum, that gamers from jRPG background are much more positive to DA2.
So, I'm inclined to think that the voiced character is really one of the key pieces behind the so called polarization of Bioware's audience. Which they have claimed wanting to bridge with DA:I. Can they do that? Isn't that a very daunting mission? Bioware certainly seem to have bust their balls trying. But what if it's far simpler?
What if it was possible to mute the protagonist?
No, we try over and over to explain to you that the SILENT protagonist doesn't allow for the "level of control" that you're claiming it does, either. Because it doesn't, and it has its own share of limitations and oddities. All you do is announce that you prefer the limitations and oddities of one style over another and then insist that it's (somehow) "better" because you don't mind those limitations and oddities--therefore they don't exist.
Calling it "control" is absurd. It's not control to be able to imagine something and then ignore the fact that it has no effect whatsoever on the game itself. Nor is it a LACK of control if some aspect of the game design inhibits you from these imaginings. Imagination != control. Imagination is imagination. I don't announce that because I can sit at the wheel of a toy car and freely turn it that I control the toy car better than I control a real car that is parked and the wheel locked so that it doesn't turn freely. I "control" neither--they are immobile. My yanking at the wheel is not causing anything to happen, not even if I really get into it and start making honking and vroom vroom noises.
Silent or voiced protagonist, you have exactly the same degree of control over *the game*--you pick from a list of developer-written options, and the developer-written results occur. If you find that hearing the PC speaks inhibits you, this isn't a lack of control over the game--your control over the game is *exactly* the same as it was before. This is a lack of control over your mental functions. Which is fine--nobody's obligated to force themselves to enjoy something. That would be silly and a waste of time to boot. However, treating your internal reaction as identical to an external mechanical change is nonsensical.
Now, DA2 did have some *actual* reductions in control. Persuasion (a skill you could choose to take or not take, using points) was replaced with specialized tone options, which required you to adopt a particular "dominant tone" (itself incredibly difficult to judge, as it was a numerical aggregate that wasn't recorded anywhere so good luck knowing what your tone was unless you picked every single tone option as the same type). Some options were companion-dependent, and not in the Origins way where you could have a different reaction if a companion was present, but that some major interactions could play out entirely differently if certain companions were present (such as if Anders was present when you took your sibling into the Deep Roads). That was fundamentally different from maybe a humorous line of dialog or Morrigan shouting at someone to get out of your way. You also couldn't change the armor on your companions, or the race of your PC--quite a few things. These were *actual*, *mechanical* reductions in control. Voiced protagonist was not (although, in some cases some of the ways they WRITE for the voiced protagonist may be, because they have a tendency to put in at least some dialog where you don't get to pick options--at least in Origins if your character said it, you clicked on it, even if it was just "go on").
And here we go again. ...And you wouldn't consider that I and S t mad are living proof of that you are - simply - wrong?
What if it was possible to mute the protagonist?
Would that really work for you?
I don't know if it's possible to recapture the older games' roleplaying with a voiced protagonist, I'm inclined to think it should be. That Bioware uses two different voices per gender is a step in the right direction to address this. Personally I can live with having a voice I didn't select, as long as I don't have words I didn't select. It may take a little more mental effort to take ownership of the character, but I'm willing to live with that.
BTW, I don't necessarily agree with Sylvius about how desirable a silent protagonist is, but I definitely agree it makes roleplaying easier, at least with the way things are at present. I think that difficulty can be overcome by the player, however, as opposed to the problems of paraphrasing and autodialogue.
Those things were not a topic in the older games because of technical limitations. Cinematic presentation of character interaction and fully voiced protagonists didn't exist so there was no need to synchronize voice and visuals or even give a protagonist's line a defined tone beyond what's implicitly present in the line - which, as opposed to what promoters of paraphrasing claim, is almost always reasonably unambiguous if you want it to be.
No, no it is not. I can't tell you the number of times I picked an option in Origins thinking the Warden was being sarcastic or even-handed or mild and got yelled at by someone as a result because apparently in the writer's mind they were actually being a giant pillock. Or I read lines thinking "okay, THAT has to be the giant pillock line" only to find out later by reading the strategy guide that this was actually the suave line. If they didn't arrange them generally "top nice, bottom dick" I would have been completely at sea 95% of the time.
This didn't happen much in Baldur's Gate and earlier games because the responses tended toward an extreme degree of direct blandness in most cases. Origins would sometimes get subtle and as a result would be spectacularly obscure at times. The more actual personality options they give the protagonist, the WORSE this gets. Yes, paraphrases aren't perfect (which is why they added tone indication and other icons), but it's not BETTER than a silent protagonist. There are assumptions being made with a silent protagonist that you don't have access to. Games with silent protagonists RARELY have options that I'd actually WANT my character to say if I really had a chance to pick. Why fixate on the exact wording of the options? You're still only picking from options that somebody else wrote. You're pretty much going to go along with the main plotline regardless--because there's nothing else to do. With luck, they let you grump about it a bit, that's about it. Yet people act like they're designing a car because they're picking between four paint colors. In many cases it's not even a choice selection along the lines of Magenta, Lime Green, Plaid, and Ochre, either. It's more like Dark Blue, Dark Green, Dark Red, and Black. (Companion approves of Dark Red, of course).
It's also not true (in this series, at least) that there are *fewer* dialog options. Numerically they're the same, they're just organized differently (and they hid the investigate options in a sub-menu, so it tends to look smaller regardless).
Fallout 1 didn't "redefine" role-playing in video games. Ever play Dark Sun: Shattered Lands? Yeah, that crazy thing came out in 1993 and was the first real RPG with that top-down style and pick-from-a-list dialog. You could pull some crazy stuff, too (although there were limitations--you couldn't do a pacifist run, for instance). The game wasn't a huge hit but the style sure was.
I don't find the silent protagonist games limiting at all. I think they mimic real world conversations just about exactly.
This doesn't make any sense at all, because how well or poorly a conversation flows isn't really affected by whether or not the character is voiced, but rather by how the dialogue menu system is designed as well as how varied the dialogue is written. In Origins, the menu for dialogue was considerably clumsy when it came to talking to certain characters for more than a few lines, because it just about always lead to repeated lines if you wanted to change the subject. ME1 had a similar problem, especially if you talked to Liara or Tali. But this had to do with the way lead-ins to other lines of dialogue were set up. I can't really agree that the silent protagonist really mimics any real life conversations that I've ever had, but I suppose that's mainly because the majority of my conversations have been more than just single sentence exchanges.
Shepard talking to Mordin in his lab in ME2, in my opinion, was far more convincing than when the Warden talked to Zathrien, for instance.
Even if a mute protagonist doesn't add "control", a voiced protagonist is written with so many constraints that he is essentially disconnected from your roleplaying. He is inferior in most aspects except for the cinematic feeling.
He becomes fleshed out, which means he is an independent entity that reduces the capacity for role playing. If your roleplaying happens to fit what the character says and how, then your experience is good. If it doesn't then you don't roleplay anymore. You just watch.
Of course this assumes that there aren't big differences in the quality of writing. For example I think the Warden is an idiot and inferior compared to Hawke as far as influencing interaction and expressing my role playing. There are so many "faux" choices in his dialogue tree, not only leading to the same thing, but pretty much saying the same thing.
Different experiences I guess. That NEVER happened to me, and I'm still astonished that anyone thinks these options were ambiguous.No, no it is not. I can't tell you the number of times I picked an option in Origins thinking the Warden was being sarcastic or even-handed or mild and got yelled at by someone as a result because apparently in the writer's mind they were actually being a giant pillock. Or I read lines thinking "okay, THAT has to be the giant pillock line" only to find out later by reading the strategy guide that this was actually the suave line. If they didn't arrange them generally "top nice, bottom dick" I would have been completely at sea 95% of the time.
And it's exactly the same with paraphrases - assumptions go into them you don't have access to - only you now have a prescribed tone as well. I generally prefer my protagonist to be voiced, but paraphrasing nullifies the advantages it could have.Yes, paraphrases aren't perfect (which is why they added tone indication and other icons), but it's not BETTER than a silent protagonist. There are assumptions being made with a silent protagonist that you don't have access to.
Because even if the outcome and the tone is exactly the same between two options, one phrasing may be compatible with my vision of my character and the other may not be. Being forced into certain actions is ok if I can rationalize compatible reasons.Why fixate on the exact wording of the options? You're still only picking from options that somebody else wrote.
DA2 was generally not too bad in roleplaying I admit (apart from the paraphrasing, that is), but there is a tendency towards fewer options nonetheless, as exemplified by the ME games. In ME3, finding a conversation with investigate options is like finding a needle in a hackstack.It's also not true (in this series, at least) that there are *fewer* dialog options. Numerically they're the same, they're just organized differently (and they hid the investigate options in a sub-menu, so it tends to look smaller regardless).
Dark Sun (which I didn't play) may have invented the style, but as far as I'm aware of, it only became widely known with Fallout, and generally 1996 is regarded as the year video rpgs were "resurrected". Anyway, it doesn't matter. The important fact is that these games introduced character interaction with some depth, with some content dependent on character attributes and skills, for the first time. Roleplaying in video games was mostly limited to attribute and skill management related to combat and exploration before then.Fallout 1 didn't "redefine" role-playing in video games. Ever play Dark Sun: Shattered Lands? Yeah, that crazy thing came out in 1993 and was the first real RPG with that top-down style and pick-from-a-list dialog. You could pull some crazy stuff, too (although there were limitations--you couldn't do a pacifist run, for instance). The game wasn't a huge hit but the style sure was.
And here we go again. ...And you wouldn't consider that I and S t mad are living proof of that you are - simply - wrong?
No, because you made the wild and completely erroneous assumption that JRPG players are the only "type" of people who didn't object strenuously to the voiced protagonist in DA2, for one. I've never played a JRPG in my life--the entire esthetic sensibility is eye-rollingly stupid to me. I don't mind a small amount of some of the more minor elements in games, but I'm an old-school gamer who started out with text-based games, for crying out loud. I was playing 2nd edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons computer RPG's before they had DIALOG, when your reactions to encounters were Attack, Wait, Parlay, and Flee, including that rather amusing one where an NPC would ninja-mance one of your PC's more or less completely out of the blue. When your options were along the lines of "go in the room or don't". By today's standards they were hardly games at all, but damn if I didn't love the heck out of them all the same.
Heck, one of my favorite RPG's of all time (Gothic) has a voiced protagonist and paraphrased dialog and it came out the year after Baldur's Gate 2. That's right, this voiced protagonist thing actually PREDATES Neverwinter Nights. And you didn't get to pick ANYTHING about the protagonist, either, not how he looked, not his race or gender, not his voice (which was snarky 
). But it was an awesome game, much underrated (largely because the combat control design was, unfortunately, a big pile of poo).
So, yes, you can be an "old school" gamer and be just dandy with the whole voiced protagonist thing--even quite like it. It has a lot going for it and opens up a lot of possibilities. Sure, it might cut in on the illusion that this is "your character"--but that was never more than an illusion, anyway.
Because even if the outcome and the tone is exactly the same between two options, one phrasing may be compatible with my vision of my character and the other may not be. Being forced into certain actions is ok if I can rationalize compatible reasons.
Your "vision" for your character?
No phrasing except the one that I write 100% for myself encompasses my "vision". I guess you're just not enough of a visionary to *really* role-play, so written dialog works for you. I blame JRPG's for promoting this degenerate acceptance of written dialog. Keywords were better.
But, of course, keywords were a sad sop to the real ultimate in role-playing: text based games! You could type *anything*, and the game would respond! Granted 98% of the responses were "I don't know what that is", but it was a response! And you could type EXACTLY what you wanted to! And there weren't any of these "Graphics" to get in the way of you imagining EXACTLY what your character looked like.
Oh, Zork, we shall not see your like again.
Retour en haut