371 réponses à ce sujet

[Gtdef]

 

Also, I find this hard to believe.  Here's a response trio from a companion conversation.  One of them gives MASSIVE approval for this companion.  Which is it?  And which is the one that gives NO approval?

 

That's a case of different perspectives, not problem with the mute protagonist.

 

It's not about tone and intention. It's about what Sten wants. You already asked him 3 or so questions that he intentionally failed to answer with clarity. If it was me I'd lose approval too..

 

It's the same with calling Zevran a tease when he says that he doesn't want to talk about the "last story". You may have good intentions but it's pretty obvious that he wants to avoid talking about it.

[bEVEsthda]

Don't go there man...the last thing I need right now is to point all the fallacies mentioned in your arguments again. 

 

Oh, please be my guest.   I get a kind of perverse satisfaction from watching how you contort yourself. And it's not like I ever bother to waste any energy myself. 

[Gtdef]

Which is a solid plan as money should always be spent wisely, but metacritic isn't the place to do that. Read some of the smaller blogs (if you think the advertising to the larger sites effects their results), watch some unbiased youtube reviews. Totalbiscuit is good for giving his raw opinion without being swayed. Maybe watch a lets play or something. 

 

It depends on how you actually use reviews. If you think that the opinions of a few people without any true qualification (not to say that this makes critics credible, just that reviews are largely subjective when they are not used for the purpose of advertising) are enough to bet your money on, then good for you.

 

I do it differently. Essentially any "reasonable" review is by definition useless. As long as the game is playable and works largely the way it is intended, everything else is subjective.

 

Saying that "the game has a few bugs" means nothing, no matter if the review is an 8 or a 0.

 

A zero that says that the game is unplayable because of a clearly defined reason is a different story. And if there is even a shred of credibility then it's worth more than a billion "reasonable" reviews.

 

To give you an example why reasonable and generalized doesn't cut it for me. Rome 2 on release had "a few bugs" and "spotty ai". Got mixed to positive scores. When I played Rome 2, I thought it was the worst goddamn game in existence and I didn't even got to see a single bug. Most of the low user ratings were useless as well cause they focused on comparing it to Shogun 2 which I didn't play so I didn't care much for them. I actually disagree with most of the 0 and 1 reviews on why this game sucks. The only review that I found in which the guy has the same opinion as me for the game, was a very recent video on youtube and completely by chance. It had like 300 views.

[Ieldra]

Also, I find this hard to believe.  Here's a response trio from a companion conversation.  One of them gives MASSIVE approval for this companion.  Which is it?  And which is the one that gives NO approval?

 

1.  Why not?

2.  I'm sorry.

3.  Well, you can stay with us.

 

I interpret this as:

 

1.  Innocent question, trying to find out more so I can help

2.  Sympathy.

3.  Dismissive.  With one wave of my hand, I have solved your problem.  Time for lunch.  We should chat more often, so I can fix all your problems in a similar fashion.

 

The game interprets this as:

 

1.  Demanding nosiness (negative approval)

2.  Dismissive semi-sympathy (small approval)

3.  Massive, massive overture of friendship (big, big approval)

 

Yeah, that was totally not ambiguous.  At all.  The first time I ran up across that (and many other situations) I was shocked that there was even an approval option, much less that every single one of those had approval tied to it!

Hmm...I should say you have a point. I did interpret 3. as the game intended but I can definitely see how this may come across differently. The reason why I never chose 1 (which would've resulted in my own roleplaying dissonance) is likely that this is a companion join dialogue, which means I likely subconsciously knew that anything but offering that would result in things I didn't want. Also, I know this game too well. Advance knowledge may have colored my reaction after the first playthrough, which I don't remember well.

 

Edit:

What Gtdef said likely also played a part. Regardless of the reasons, in the playthroughs I recall my path was always clear. Unfortunately, I can't replay in an unspoiled fashion to see what my reaction might've been.

 

However, I maintain that these things can be written unambiguously without a tone indicator or a voice, if you're attentive enough as a writer. Also, the usual example which is brought up when people discuss this - which is the "royal bastard" line to Alistair at the bridge to Redcliffe - that was totally obvious as a joke to me. And I'm not even a native speaker.

[PhroXenGold]

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.

 

Thank you, that's what I was trying to get across.

 

To make it clear, I don't have a problem if people prefer the silent protagonist to the voiced dialogue wheel method. I would hope those people aren't vocal enough to influence Bioware's game design, but that's inevitable given that I prefer the system they dislike.

 

But the arguments presented in this thread as to why the silent protagonist is genuinely superior just don't hold up. They basically boil down to "if I ignore what the game is presenting to me, and imagine what I want to happen is happening, then I have more freedom". Which might be true, but the same applies to the dialogue wheel. Just imagine Hawke is saying what you want him to say instead of what he is actually saying.

 

Both methods are restrictive. You don't have the freedom to do completely what you want with your characters. Which is inevitable, given that everything your characters say has already been set by the writers, and the way NPCs react to those statements has already been set. All you can do is shape your character within those restrictions. And frankly, I can't see any justification as to why one of the two methods of presenting dialogue discussed offers more ability to do so. By all means, prefer one, but don't start claiming that the other one has all sorts of flaws which also apply to your preferred option. Don't go around claiming "ah but if you use your imagination...", when the same applies to the other option.

[Il Divo]

You're right. But the reason I used TW2 and PST was to emphasize how intolerant my taste is in this regard. But you're right, this is not clear or well expressed. It is only implied by my use of explicitly TW2 and PST.

 

No worries. Apologies for any misunderstandings I may have had, with regard to either of your posts. 

[Ieldra]

@PhroXenGold:

The point is more that anything explicitly present limits your imagination and thus your freedom. This is not about ignoring what the game presents you with, but using your imagination to fill the gaps in character definition left by the game, usually intentionally so if the writers know what they're doing (read DG's blog about game development if you don't believe that). Words plus tone is more limiting than words alone. Even more to the point, if you don't like the protagonist's voice you're basically screwed in a game with a fully voiced protagonist, while your imagination can supply one you do like if none is prescribed.

 

Meanwhile, if the options and features presented by the game actively support your vision rather than just not being restrictive, and if you can identify your character with the voice, that obviously results in a superior experience. I personally don't usually find the latter difficult which is why a voiced protagonist is not a problem for me personally, but it is intrinsically more limiting than a silent one.

[bEVEsthda]

Thank you, that's what I was trying to get across.

 

To make it clear, I don't have a problem if people prefer the silent protagonist to the voiced dialogue wheel method. I would hope those people aren't vocal enough to influence Bioware's game design, but that's inevitable given that I prefer the system they dislike.

 

But the arguments presented in this thread as to why the silent protagonist is genuinely superior just don't hold up. They basically boil down to "if I ignore what the game is presenting to me, and imagine what I want to happen is happening, then I have more freedom". Which might be true, but the same applies to the dialogue wheel. Just imagine Hawke is saying what you want him to say instead of what he is actually saying.

 

Both methods are restrictive. You don't have the freedom to do completely what you want with your characters. Which is inevitable, given that everything your characters say has already been set by the writers, and the way NPCs react to those statements has already been set. All you can do is shape your character within those restrictions. And frankly, I can't see any justification as to why one of the two methods of presenting dialogue discussed offers more ability to do so. By all means, prefer one, but don't start claiming that the other one has all sorts of flaws which also apply to your preferred option. Don't go around claiming "ah but if you use your imagination...", when the same applies to the other option.

 

If your point is that silent protagonist is not superior, or your point is that the way, those who like silent protagonist play and experience their games, is not superior, - I would guess that commenting a place where somebody actually makes such superiority claims, and presenting your opinion that it's not, would have decent odds of making your point come across.

 

If you however repeatedly claim that silent protagonist doesn't work, you will get explanations from people why and how silent protagonist works. If you then continue to claim that they are wrong, and that they cannot play silent protagonist the way they try to explain, you are going to get increasingly elaborate explanations on how it works, as well as emphatic statements that it does indeed work for them and their approach.

[pdusen]

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.

 

Yeah, this was overwhelmingly my experience as well, and it's why I simply cannot buy that having a silent protagonist where you headcanon the tone is at all superior to voiced. In fact, for myself, it's quite a bit worse.

[pdusen]

I don't find the silent protagonist games limiting at all. I think they mimic real world conversations just about exactly.

 

Sylvius, based on this sentiment, I feel compelled to ask--and feel free to ignore this question if it's too personal or offensive to you--but are you aware of having any type of social handicap? I just ask because--and this isn't an accusation, just an example--anecdotes like yours, on how the reactions of people to things you say are largely unpredictable regardless of tone, are the sorts of things I would expect to hear from people who suffer from high-functioning autism.

 

Again, feel free to ignore this if it's offensive or too personal, I just feel that the answer to this question would add a lot of context to the thoughts that you present here.

[Medhia_Nox]

Silent protagonist is superior to me - because the text becomes "intent" and I can decide what I "really" said. 

 

It's in the same way that most books are, for me, superior to most movies as my imagination is far superior to anything I've yet seen on screen (and what I've seen on screen has been mighty impressive). 

 

Also - it drives me mad that pressing a text options produces a different voiced response.

 

As for "How an NPC takes what you say."  That's called a conversation to me. In real life I can be misinterpreted plenty.  Wanting to control how the NPC takes what I say isn't roleplaying at all to me. 

 

That being said - voiced protagonist is here to stay - people prefer being told what to experience. 

 

Also - I wouldn't mind silent NPCs either (and I've played tons of CRPGs that were amazing that were like this) - text conversations are actually the most, for me, liberating... then I don't have to be called "Warden" a hundred million times... you can actually use the name I decided for my character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

However, treating your internal reaction as identical to an external mechanical change is nonsensical.

That's absurd. Look at the brain in a jar problem; things I perceive are things I perceive, regardless of their source.

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").

These are a huge deal, especially the paraphrasing. The paraphrase is the biggest problem, I think.

[Il Divo]

 

As for "How an NPC takes what you say."  That's called a conversation to me. In real life I can be misinterpreted plenty.  Wanting to control how the NPC takes what I say isn't roleplaying at all to me. 

 

Wanting to control what an npc says and wanting to clarify what you say to an npc are two different things. Someone who takes issue with aspects of the silent protagonist might well be arguing the latter case. 

 

Conversations generally-speaking don't deny me the opportunity to clarify my own position. 

 

The problem is that any behaviour that stands out to the player or character as unusual becomes an instant draw for role-playing dialogue. If I inhabit a world inhabit mostly by humans and meet an elf, I'm likely to want an option to discuss that in some capacity. If a character produces a response to something I say that is very much unlike anything I would expect, that too will stand out to me as something which the game should give me the chance to clarify. 

 

 

 

 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Truly can't tell if that first is a joke.

It isn't. I don't enjoy playing with others. I like being alone; it's less stressful.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

They're inductive.

And I find not drawing them improves my gameplay experience.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Would that really work for you?

It would solve the paraphrase problem (which I often equate with the voice problem, because they appear together). If I could mute the PC, and then turn off the subtitles, I could choose the paraphrases as if they were full text options, and assign the tone myself, as I always did before.

That the lines were written to played differently would probably make for some new difficulties (the loss of the dominant tone should mitigate this, however), but I'm confident I would enjoy it more than I do the voice.

BioWare says they won't give us this option because people would choose it expecting the old silent protagonist experience, and they wouldn't get it. And of course they wouldn't, but BioWare insists on protecting us from ourselves by not letting us try.

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.

If they do, I'll be the first one to stand and applaud.

[Ieldra]

If they do, I'll be the first one to stand and applaud.

I'd rather see them try. Because you know, if you can make the voiced protagonist work for you, then you'll have an experience you'll never have in tabletop roleplaying: your characters have their own voices, not yours, while still being yours to shape, and they work independently from your acting ability - which in us nerds isn't usually well-developed, don't you agree? That's a really huge thing.

 

Though....the paraphrases must go for that, I think we agree about this abomination of a "feature". 

[AlanC9]

To give you an example why reasonable and generalized doesn't cut it for me. Rome 2 on release had "a few bugs" and "spotty ai". Got mixed to positive scores. When I played Rome 2, I thought it was the worst goddamn game in existence and I didn't even got to see a single bug. Most of the low user ratings were useless as well cause they focused on comparing it to Shogun 2 which I didn't play so I didn't care much for them. I actually disagree with most of the 0 and 1 reviews on why this game sucks. The only review that I found in which the guy has the same opinion as me for the game, was a very recent video on youtube and completely by chance. It had like 300 views.

Going way OT, what were your specific problems with Rome 2? I was wondering if there was any way to discover that the game had these problems without actually playing it.

Put another way, what should reviewers have been telling you that they didn't tell you?

[AlanC9]

As for "How an NPC takes what you say."  That's called a conversation to me. In real life I can be misinterpreted plenty.  Wanting to control how the NPC takes what I say isn't roleplaying at all to me.

This objection kind of misses the point for me. It isn't that I want to control the NPCs reactions, it's that I want to understand them. I suppose you could say that I'm updating a mental model of the NPCs personality in exactly the same way as we do for actual humans.

Now, the NPCs react to the tone the dialogue writer intended, not a tone I wish the line had. So if I pretend that the NPC heard the tone I wanted my PC to use rather than the tone the writer intended, this means that I'm introducing an error into the model -- unless I maintain two models, one for the actual NPC and the other for the NPC I'm pretending exists.

I can do it, sure, but it's annoying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Yes, just like real world conversations.

In DA2, I could often tell what reaction NPCs would have. This prevented those conversations from being believable, because I don't think we should have that information.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Now, the NPCs react to the tone the dialogue writer intended, not a tone I wish the line had. So if I pretend that the NPC heard the tone I wanted my PC to use rather than the tone the writer intended, this means that I'm introducing an error into the model -- unless I maintain two models, one for the actual NPC and the other for the NPC I'm pretending exists.

Why maintain the first model?

I only maintain second. Within this playthrough, that NPC might be a very different person from who she is in another playthrough.

I don't think I even could maintain the first model, because the writers' intent isn't known to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Keywords were better, but full text can work the same way. They're just more precise keywords, as long as you can accept them as abstractions of what is actually said.

I've tried to do that with the voiced lines, as well, but it tends to render great swaths of the game irrelevant, and thus pretty dull. Maybe if DA2's combat had been better I wouldn't have minded the dialogue so much.

[Medhia_Nox]

@AlanC9:  Well, the real point is that Voiced Protagonist is not going nowhere.  My protests are largely impotent, but that doesn't meant my opinion is invalid - it is simply different.  I don't miss the point of the voiced protagonist (at least, I don't believe I do) - I simply don't agree with it. 

 

I do have hope though - in games like Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity and a smattering of other games that are harkening back to more of a text style form of RPing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Though....the paraphrases must go for that, I think we agree about this abomination of a "feature".

Absolutely. The paraphrases are most of the problem.

If we had full text with the voice, I could simply mute all the voices and work from the subtitles. I mostly don't watch the dialogue scenes anyway; I just read the subtitles. So not having the voices in the way (something I can easily do without the paraphrases) would fix everything.

The paraphrase needs to go away, or somehow be vastly improved. BioWare has promised an improved paraphrase in Inquisition. I'm eager to see how well they did.

[Ieldra]

LOL. I would hope that I'll be able to to identify with the protagonist's voice and have options that don't feel out of character as spoken, rather than having to mute the speech, but if that's what works for you....

 

My problem with the paraphrases is rather that I can't make an informed decision about what my character's going to say, and even more importantly, that playing with paraphrases feels like I don't know my character's mind. It makes me an observer where I'd expect to be an actor.