371 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

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. 

 

Says the man desperately trying to prove a point right now in this thread. A point that is summed up as opinionated assertions no matter how eloquent you make it. 

 

That is what this entire conversation is about, because everyone thinks one way or the other is superior.

 

I feel bad about it honestly, I don't think it should matter at all because it is just an aspect of storytelling and role playing utilized to tell the tale in a controlled environment. Even if the illusion of the controlled environment is better in one instance over the other, its still an illusion regardless. One that still tells you a tale regardless of the game you play. Let's face it, we have a railed storyline in Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2, hell every BioWare game created since 1998 is on guided hands, how you play your character changes the context, not the content. It's the old narrative vs plot discussion again. 

 

In context of the whole game, silent vs voiced is a pointless, circular debate in that regard, and should be framed a different way. At least, if you ask me. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's the old narrative vs plot discussion again.

Of course it is. But that's an important discussion, and this is a way to start it.

[LinksOcarina]

Of course it is. But that's an important discussion, and this is a way to start it.

 

I agree it's an important discussion, I disagree regarding the merits between a voiced/voiceless protagonist are involved with it though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree it's an important discussion, I disagree regarding the merits between a voiced/voiceless protagonist are involved with it though.

People don't like it when we question their assumptions. They're usually insistent that they haven't made any.

This is way to lead them to question those assumptions themselves.

[bEVEsthda]

Says the man desperately trying to prove a point right now in this thread. A point that is summed up as opinionated assertions no matter how eloquent you make it. 

 

So that's your impression?

Well, I'm not surprised. 

 

 

What I've done in this thread is to explain, to those who claim it cannot be done and cannot work, how and why it does indeed work (silent protagonist). This seem to annoy you and PsychoBlonde?

My proof is that people are actually doing it. Including myself. And I've tried to explain that it's a matter of perspective from which you experience the game.

 

Unlike S t Mad, though, I have no ambition about getting others to experience RPGs 'the silent protagonist way'. I don't think people bother to change that way. It's a hopeless mission.

 

That is what this entire conversation is about, because everyone thinks one way or the other is superior.

 

They do. And it is, viewed from their respective perspective. But it's not what the conversation is/has been about.

 

 

I feel bad about it honestly, I don't think it should matter at all because it is just an aspect of storytelling and role playing utilized to tell the tale in a controlled environment. Even if the illusion of the controlled environment is better in one instance over the other, its still an illusion regardless. One that still tells you a tale regardless of the game you play. Let's face it, we have a railed storyline in Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2, hell every BioWare game created since 1998 is on guided hands, how you play your character changes the context, not the content. It's the old narrative vs plot discussion again. 

 

Well, I'm not sure that is a position that is entirely meaningful.

It does matter. Not to those who get what they prefer. But it does matter to those who don't get what they prefer (or maybe need - though I'll try DA:I first, before hardlining it to that degree). I've said it often enough, it's two different types of games.

 

Your assertions that it doesn't matter, seem to me to entirely originate only from your perspective, and the need to declare silent as irrelevant. In the case of DA:I, silent is irrelevant, but that doesn't mean we can't defend that style of gaming - or, more on the point, that type of games.

 

Yes it's "only illusion". There's nothing "only" about it. And it's all  "illusion". Always. When you read a novel, everything you experience is an illusion. When you watch a movie, everything you experience is an illusion. If you can't accept the illusion, there's no reason to take part in any of these activities. Imagination is essential. Videogames are typically not different. RPGs, cetainly not.

I don't think it's a question if one kind of illusion is superior to another, in some regard and not in other. It doesn't even up. It's more a case of one kind of illusion not delivering what I'm interested in. Again, to me, it's two different kinds of games.

 

Whether a certain plot is "railed" or not, according to your analysis, is less important than if it is experienced as railed. But railroading is a bit OT right now.

 

 

In context of the whole game, silent vs voiced is a pointless, circular debate in that regard, and should be framed a different way. At least, if you ask me. 

 

Well, in the regard of that it's already decided to make it voiced, it may seem pointless. But it's not like the dialogue wheel and way of handling the dialogue, haven't been improved as a consequence of that debate. So I find it hard to accept it as circular. But that would of course depend on what questions and arguments you involve yourself with.

If your goal is to shut down that discussion, I can well imagine it might be frustrating.

[UniformGreyColor]

I actually just started thinking about the whole voiced main character dialog and it only makes sense that the characters speech only be exactly what the dialog options are with the exception of possibility of tacking on some more dialog that closely follows what the dialog option(s) was/were, and I say that knowing that I am sometimes pleasantly surprised by what is said by an NPC character when I have chosen a specific line. I think, so far, voice acting in a videogame is a good thing as long as it is implemented well and I can somewhat tell how the reactions of what I say is going to be received as by my other characters and/or other NPCs. One way that the Devs could solve this is by previewing what each option sounds like. I think it is worth saying again that I sometime enjoy being surprised by how things actually turn out. Also another thing I enjoy about dialog options is the investigative part and having to chose what to investigate. Thoughts?

Modifié par UniformGreyColor, 07 septembre 2014 - 06:37 .

[bEVEsthda]

I actually just started thinking about the whole voiced main character dialog and it only makes sense that the characters speech only be exactly what the dialog options are with the exception of possibility of tacking on some more dialog that closely follows what the dialog option(s) was/were, and I say that knowing that I am sometimes pleasantly surprised by what is said by a character when I have chosen a specific line. I think, so far, voice acting in a videogame is a good thing as long as it is implemented well and I can somewhat tell how the reactions of what I say is going to be received as by my other characters and/or other NPCs. One way that the Devs could solve this is by previewing what each option sounds like. I think it is worth saying again that I sometime enjoy being surprised by how things actually turn out. Also another thing I enjoy about dialog options is the investigative part and having to chose what to investigate. Thoughts?

 

Surprises in how a conversation evolves, depending upon NPCs reactions, there's not going to be any change. This we will continue to happen.

 

Surprises in what the protagonist says, is a different matter. This was regarded as a feature during DA2 development. There's even an interview with one of the doctors, prior to release, where he delightfully describes this. This is now regarded as a problem to be eradicated, and DA:I's dialogue system will try to avoid these.

The reason is of course the tremendous ".... hit on the fan" which followed the release of DA2. The nerd rage on the forums was quite intolerant of the player becoming surprised by the PC's behavior. It was regarded as unacceptable by a rather large group. So Bioware will not venture there again anytime soon, in my estimate.

 

If they actually could, is a different matter. I think this ties in pretty closely to the silent vs. voiced issue. If Bioware loses the 'silent' -audience anyway, would the surprises still be as unacceptable? I don't know, because i don't belong to that group.

[UniformGreyColor]

Surprises in how a conversation evolves, depending upon NPCs reactions, there's not going to be any change. This we will continue to happen.

 

Surprises in what the protagonist says, is a different matter. This was regarded as a feature during DA2 development. There's even an interview with one of the doctors, prior to release, where he delightfully describes this. This is now regarded as a problem to be eradicated, and DA:I's dialogue system will try to avoid these.

The reason is of course the tremendous ".... hit on the fan" which followed the release of DA2. The nerd rage on the forums was quite intolerant of the player becoming surprised by the PC's behavior. It was regarded as unacceptable by a rather large group. So Bioware will not venture there again anytime soon, in my estimate.

 

If they actually could, is a different matter. I think this ties in pretty closely to the silent vs. voiced issue. If Bioware loses the 'silent' -audience anyway, would the surprises still be as unacceptable? I don't know, because i don't belong to that group.

 

I appreciate your feedback. I am actually most curious what people think about being able to preview what is actually said by the protagonist if it is a voiced actor.

[bEVEsthda]

I appreciate your feedback. I am actually most curious what people think about being able to preview what is actually said by the protagonist if it is a voiced actor.

 

There's been a lot of debate about this too. Mostly in context of the Dialogue Wheel. My impression is that the front lines much follows the silent vs voiced issue again. I.e. the 'silent' mostly wanting explicit, full-length previews.

 

The developers, however, have been pretty adamant that this is won't happen, for reasons I have never been able to understand, and therefore cannot give account of, either.

[UniformGreyColor]

There's been a lot of debate about this too. Mostly in context of the Dialogue Wheel. My impression is that the front lines much follows the silent vs voiced issue again. I.e. the 'silent' mostly wanting explicit, full-length previews.

 

 So its just a simple matter of if you want to know the protagonists motives and not be surprised by what they say?

[bEVEsthda]

 So its just a simple matter of if you want to know the protagonists motives and not be surprised by what they say?

 

What is "it"?

 

In regard of the 'silent protagonist' -approach, it's just a consequence.

When playing silent, the protagonist is yours. You don't "want to know the protagonist's motives", because you - as your protagonist - as the lens/filter through which you experience the game, already decide these motives, just as you decide exactly what you say.

 - Or, at least, that's the illusion you want to uphold.

[UniformGreyColor]

What is "it"?

 

In regard of the 'silent protagonist' -approach, it's just a consequence.

When playing silent, the protagonist is yours. You don't "want to know the protagonist's motives", because you - as your protagonist - as the lens/filter through which you experience the game, already decide those motives, just as you decide exactly what you say.

 - Or, at least, that's the illusion you want to uphold.

 

When I said it, I meant the argument that has been discussed over a large portion of this thread regarding voiced vs. unvoiced protagonists. 

 

So you're saying that there really is not an option for full control over your protagonist because its a game and written by someones else somewhere so we are really just playing out a story that someone else has created?

[bEVEsthda]

When I said it, I meant the argument that has been discussed over a large portion of this thread regarding voiced vs. unvoiced protagonists. 

 

To save time, I assumed so, and responded to this.

 

 

So you're saying that there really is not an option for full control over your protagonist because its a game and written by someones else somewhere so we are really just playing out a story that someone else has created?

 

No.

 

RPG technology is limited, still, so there are always some kind of compromises. For more control you'd go to games like Morrowind, Skyrim and Fallout 3. Those games (though I enjoy them tremendously) lose other things. Everything is more sketchy, combat is FP-action, no party, etc.

 

Bioware's games have other things to enjoy.

The setting and story is Bioware's. But the PC doesn't have to be. Didn't have to be, prior to DA2. It goes back to everything I've tried to say about how you view the game. The problems, which others like to point out, are not really any problems in practice. Not for me. I don't suffer them. I have the experience of control, as long as the game doesn't explicitly and in-my-face break that. Regardless of how you experience the game, you are always going to have to make compromises to allow for immersion. So it's nothing special and new, regarding control. Dialogue lines, for instance, if I can preview them, I have also the time and opportunity to make one of them my character's. I don't know if you understand that, but that's the best way I can describe it. It's a mental process. But everything you experience as a relevant fiction experience in a game, also relies on a mental process, to convert it into something less abstract than what the game and game rules actually presents. To give it 'life'. So there's no difference. If you didn't do this, there wouldn't be any story.

 

Edit: P.S. I said: "as long as the game doesn't explicitly and in-my-face break that". Must the presence of a voiced PC and a dialogue wheel necessarily break that? Well, maybe not. We'll see. Maybe one can make more compromises to accommodate a well-made dialogue system.

[Nightwing99]

I see i has an entirely different way of thinking about my Hawke and my Warden 

 

i think Hawke and Warden as my character The same way comics writer think  in his version of characters like Batman and Superman 

 

For example, when you read the Dark Knight returns you do not think that just Batman you think that Frank Miller Batman 

[Chashan]

When I said it, I meant the argument that has been discussed over a large portion of this thread regarding voiced vs. unvoiced protagonists. 

 

So you're saying that there really is not an option for full control over your protagonist because its a game and written by someones else somewhere so we are really just playing out a story that someone else has created?

 

Which is an acknowledgement of that fact, yes. Even so, keeping appearances as regards control of the player over their PC's motives, thought-processes and the way they express their decisions is still seen as worthwhile as it clearly emphasizes the interactive nature of the game.

 

 

 

Now, a developer wishing to cover these motives and ways of expression with VO can think ahead enough to include a broad array of options in that regard. The additional VO-content, and thus increased cost involved should be fairly obvious, however, which is why you have seen silent protagonists presented as the more flexible option here.

Two examples of a problem with set tone and limited array of motives set VO-lines bring that come to mind thinking of recent BW-games:

 

in DA2, you are given dominant tones that are supposed to set Hawkes with different attitudes apart - yet you get a back-and-forth between friendly inquiry and forceful demand, for instance, which simply did not sound all that good to me when playing the game recently.

 

In ME3, you got the Rannoch-resolution which mostly centers around the question of who was to blame for the Morning War and a truth and/or reconciliation moment - entirely ignoring that this may well be rather irrelevant to the PC who may only be interested in military capability of either side. It does not quite help that a war asset-entry on the geth states that they have in their possession a prodigious amount of Dreadnought-war ships after the fact; prior to it, this simply did not explicitly enter into the decision-making process.

 

 

In contrast, I got the luxury of broader options in DA:O which I, as the player, can intonate at will and form my own motivations for, rather than being limited to a lower number of voiced motives to pick from because the developers did not think of a motive I had in mind and/or are constrained by them being able to provide only so much VO-work within the game's frame.

[LinksOcarina]

So that's your impression?

Well, I'm not surprised. 

 

 

What I've done in this thread is to explain, to those who claim it cannot be done and cannot work, how and why it does indeed work (silent protagonist). This seem to annoy you and PsychoBlonde?

My proof is that people are actually doing it. Including myself. And I've tried to explain that it's a matter of perspective from which you experience the game.

 

Unlike S t Mad, though, I have no ambition about getting others to experience RPGs 'the silent protagonist way'. I don't think people bother to change that way. It's a hopeless mission.

 

 

They do. And it is, viewed from their respective perspective. But it's not what the conversation is/has been about.

 

 

 

Well, I'm not sure that is a position that is entirely meaningful.

It does matter. Not to those who get what they prefer. But it does matter to those who don't get what they prefer (or maybe need - though I'll try DA:I first, before hardlining it to that degree). I've said it often enough, it's two different types of games.

 

Your assertions that it doesn't matter, seem to me to entirely originate only from your perspective, and the need to declare silent as irrelevant. In the case of DA:I, silent is irrelevant, but that doesn't mean we can't defend that style of gaming - or, more on the point, that type of games.

 

Yes it's "only illusion". There's nothing "only" about it. And it's all  "illusion". Always. When you read a novel, everything you experience is an illusion. When you watch a movie, everything you experience is an illusion. If you can't accept the illusion, there's no reason to take part in any of these activities. Imagination is essential. Videogames are typically not different. RPGs, cetainly not.

I don't think it's a question if one kind of illusion is superior to another, in some regard and not in other. It doesn't even up. It's more a case of one kind of illusion not delivering what I'm interested in. Again, to me, it's two different kinds of games.

 

Whether a certain plot is "railed" or not, according to your analysis, is less important than if it is experienced as railed. But railroading is a bit OT right now.

 

 

 

Well, in the regard of that it's already decided to make it voiced, it may seem pointless. But it's not like the dialogue wheel and way of handling the dialogue, haven't been improved as a consequence of that debate. So I find it hard to accept it as circular. But that would of course depend on what questions and arguments you involve yourself with.

If your goal is to shut down that discussion, I can well imagine it might be frustrating.

 

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. 

[UniformGreyColor]

Which is an acknowledgement of that fact, yes. Even so, keeping appearances as regards control of the player over their PC's motives, thought-processes and the way they express their decisions is still seen as worthwhile as it clearly emphasizes the interactive nature of the game.

 

 

 

Now, a developer wishing to cover these motives and ways of expression with VO can think ahead enough to include a broad array of options in that regard. The additional VO-content, and thus increased cost involved should be fairly obvious, however, which is why you have seen silent protagonists presented as the more flexible option here.

Two examples of a problem with set tone and limited array of motives set VO-lines bring that come to mind thinking of recent BW-games:

 

in DA2, you are given dominant tones that are supposed to set Hawkes with different attitudes apart - yet you get a back-and-forth between friendly inquiry and forceful demand, for instance, which simply did not sound all that good to me when playing the game recently.

 

In ME3, you got the Rannoch-resolution which mostly centers around the question of who was to blame for the Morning War and a truth and/or reconciliation moment - entirely ignoring that this may well be rather irrelevant to the PC who may only be interested in military capability of either side. It does not quite help that a war asset-entry on the geth states that they have in their possession a prodigious amount of Dreadnought-war ships after the fact; prior to it, this simply did not explicitly enter into the decision-making process.

 

 

In contrast, I got the luxury of broader options in DA:O which I, as the player, can intonate at will and form my own motivations for, rather than being limited to a lower number of voiced motives to pick from because the developers did not think of a motive I had in mind and/or are constrained by them being able to provide only so much VO-work within the game's frame.

 

The only thing that I can comment on is that based on what the PC says, the NPCs have a reaction one way or another. They have to account for all those extra unvoiced options another way because if the PC has more options, it only seems logical that there will be more reactions from NPCs. Basically all this means is that BW has to decide if its worth it to either 1) pay additional actors to do VOs or 2) decide to have the voice actors they have do more VOs and decide which is more cost effective vs. how many more sales they will make making either decision 1 or 2.

[Ieldra]

Surprises in what the protagonist says, is a different matter. This was regarded as a feature during DA2 development. There's even an interview with one of the doctors, prior to release, where he delightfully describes this. This is now regarded as a problem to be eradicated, and DA:I's dialogue system will try to avoid these.

The reason is of course the tremendous ".... hit on the fan" which followed the release of DA2. The nerd rage on the forums was quite intolerant of the player becoming surprised by the PC's behavior. It was regarded as unacceptable by a rather large group. So Bioware will not venture there again anytime soon, in my estimate.

 

If they actually could, is a different matter. I think this ties in pretty closely to the silent vs. voiced issue. If Bioware loses the 'silent' -audience anyway, would the surprises still be as unacceptable? I don't know, because i don't belong to that group.

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

 

As for the "silent" crowd, I'm not one of them. I like my voiced protagonists and I'm willing to accept some limitations in order to have them voiced. However, not knowing what my character's going to say is 100% unacceptable. I regard paraphrasing as an abomination, and I have so far been unable to understand why anyone could ever see it as desirable. 

[AlanC9]

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

A system where you could read the whole line before you pick it was said to have failed during testing. People didn't like reading the line and then hearing the same line spoken.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So its just a simple matter of if you want to know the protagonists motives and not be surprised by what they say?

Yes. I would like to know what it is I'm choosing. And with the paraphrase, I don't.

There's no way I can see for the paraphrase to accurately describe what won't be said. With the full text, we know what won't be said, because everything that will be said is shown to us. Everything else won't be said. So if there's some dialogue the player needs to avoid in order to maintain character coherence, he can do that.

But the paraphrase necessary doesn't give us thay much information. We know that there is something that will be said of which we are unaware when we make the choice. How then can we make the choice with any confidence?

[Ieldra]

A system where you could read the whole line before you pick it was said to have failed during testing. People didn't like reading the line and then hearing the same line spoken.

Not what I meant. I was referring specifically to the element of being surprised by what your own character says, which apparently was regarded as desirable in itself rather than being inevitable as a consequence of people being uncomfortable with hearing lines being spoken they had already read. Because I can't for the hell of it see that as anything but anathema to roleplaying.

 

@UniformGreyColor:

The problem with paraphrasing is not *only* that I have insufficient information about what will be said because words do matter. There is another, more intrinstic problem: not knowing in advance what you're going to say removes the illusion of being in your character's mind. You become an observer who controls a puppet with a remote control unit rather than an actor who controls the protagonist from within. The illusion that your character is yours is destroyed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

A system where you could read the whole line before you pick it was said to have failed during testing. People didn't like reading the line and then hearing the same line spoken.

"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.

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.

[Elhanan]

Kinda hope not; have yet to make it out of the BG tutorial, but have played almost everything in DA.

[UniformGreyColor]

Yes. I would like to know what it is I'm choosing. And with the paraphrase, I don't.

There's no way I can see for the paraphrase to accurately describe what won't be said. With the full text, we know what won't be said, because everything that will be said is shown to us. Everything else won't be said. So if there's some dialogue the player needs to avoid in order to maintain character coherence, he can do that.

But the paraphrase necessary doesn't give us thay much information. We know that there is something that will be said of which we are unaware when we make the choice. How then can we make the choice with any confidence?

 

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.

[UniformGreyColor]

"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.

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.

 

If by "the voice" you mean the TV series, then I totally agree.