572 réponses à ce sujet

[Reidbynature]

What about a mute option... other than the one that comes with your tv remote? 

[Realmzmaster]

If I am not wrong in the Mass Effect One Trailer it states that a rogue warrior leads an unstoppable force across the galaxy and the only one standing in his way is you.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=-_6ZMr2bMco

 

I believe the you being talk about is the player. The trailer does not state that Shepard is the one standing in the way because you the player become Shepard.

 

There are many ways to roleplay a character. The character can be a Tabula rasa  akin to the warden or the player can step into a role like Hawke or Shepard. Either one involves roleplaying. One way is not necessarily superior to the other way.

 

Players may prefer one method over the other method which is fine, but to say one is superior to the other is opinion. For example I can roleplay Hawke or Shepard by stepping into that role and play within the limitations of the character. 

 

Others like the Warden because they can create or headcanon the character they wish to roleplay. A person can have a preference but to say that a player is less imaginative or need the character spoon fed to them to roleplay is simply opinion. 

 

I can roleplay either way. I simply prefer the voiced character especially if all the companions and NPCs are voiced. I have been playing crpgs for a long time. Technology now allows me to physically here the voice of my character rather than just headcanoning it. I find that to be refreshing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

My "voice" when I read is so overwhelming that, in fact, it's the same no matter what I'm reading. The best way to describe is this: whenever I read, it's like I read outloud, with my tone, my intonation, my style. It's very hard for me to hear another's voice, and it basically requires me to have heard it a lot (and recently) to be familiar with it. And even then it's like a faint echo.

 

It's impossible for me to RP as a woman without VO, because I will read every line in my voice, i.e., a man's voice. 

Weird.  I don't read with a voice at all - I instantly convert the text to meaning.

 

I've often said that text is my first language, and that speech is my second language.  I always have to translate speech to text in order to extract any meaning from it.

 

That's why I like subtitles so much: They save me time.

I had to replay all of DA:O with the same character when I realized it broke my HN by not allowing him to put himself forward as a candidate for the throne, despite being more qualified than both Alistair and Anora and, realistically speaking, probably being able to swing a better claim.

That's an interesting example.  That Anora has a claim to the throne at all tells me that I don't understand Fereldan succession laws.  So I have no idea whether Warden Cousland would even be eligible for the throne.

 

Hence, I can't be upset about being excluded.

 

I will grant, however, that it would have been a cooler ending if you could have made yourself King.

Because the PC doesn't say whatever I like. The PC has 3-4 pre-defined options, with a pre-infused intent, tone and pre-planned effect that is hidden from me.

Obviously, I disagree with you about the intent and tone, and deny that the effect matters at all.

 

But your point about now being able to say what you want is interesting, because I would think it extremely rare that a situation would arise where there would be only one possible response from me.  There are always lots of different things I might say.  So I don't find this to be a problem at all.

The game actively contradicts it the moment the line is uttered. There are certainly situations where a line is unambiguous and so no problem arises, but there plenty of instances where the reaction of the NPC is impossible or otherwise inconsistent with their established character. The difference between real life and the game is that we actually do have subjective knowledge of NPC's reaction to the line, via approval. 

 

But even if we didn't, there is a larger problem. You're confusing two things in your position. 

 

1. My mental model of the other person's subjective state (i.e., my theory of their mind) and 

2. The actual subjective state of the other person.

 

The second point is irrelevant. It does not matter to me what you actually think or feel. All that matters is the use and predictability of my model. I can't know what you're thinking, but I can have a good model of what I think you're thinking, and it's based on this (relatively accurate) model that I'm acting.

Since I can't have number 2, I don't even bother with number 1 (as the point of number 1 is to emulate number 2, and number 2 being unknowable means that I have no mechanism by which to assess the success or failure of number 1).

 

I might be able to model your reactions, but modelling your actual thoughts would be a waste of time.

 

But most of the time in-game, we don't actually get meaningful reactions.  We get remarks that could mean a great many different things, and might have been caused by a great many different things.  There are a number of times in DAO when Alistair reveals information to you that's terribly impotant to him, but he was keeping secret.  I don't find it at all surprising, then, that sometimes he behaves unpredictably, because he admits that he sometimes has some important things on his mind which I don't know about, so I can't factor them into my predictions.  And I find this is generally true of people, so trying to predict their reactions is generally a waste of time.

 

If my assistant doesn't seem to be paying attention at work, maybe he's bored.  Maybe he's not a very good assistant.  Maybe he's disillusioned with the company.  Maybe he's fighting with his wife.  Maybe his kid got into trouble at school.  Maybe he recently learned that his mother has a terminal illness.  Or maybe he's 3 steps ahead of me and is thinking his way through a problem that I'm still trying to explain to him.

 

I had the same assistant for 6 years, and I would never have thought to guess why he was behaving as he did.  And all of those things I mentioned above were true at one point or another.

The model is imperfect but it's not inaccurate - and when the deviation is absurd, then there is a serious problem. It's impossible to build this model without actual data - and that data comes from knowing the reaction to actual delivery, because that delivery is hard-coded.

That delivery is not hard-coded.  That delivery isn't in the game at all.  The authored delivery informed much of the other content (the writing of the response, the instructions given to the NPC voice-actors), but the actual delivery never made it into the game.  It's not there.

I don't need to actually learn about other people, in the same way that an engineer doesn't need to actually learn about the world. I just need a good theory that allows for accurate predictions for my goals.

I have yet to see such a model that works with individuals.

 

Predicting population behaviour in the aggregate?  Sure.  But individuals?  No.

Let's use an example.

 

Say I need someone to open a door. We'll only ever interact in this circumstances, with respect to the door, and I've never interacted with them before.

 

I act boisterous and assertive. I make demands.

The person finds this pitiable. She isn't cowered, but nevertheless opens the door out of pity.

 

In my model, I chalk this up to intimidation (with respect to her). I'm wrong. 

 

If my speech gives me the same effect each time, her subjective state is irrelevant. I've achieved the goal.

That's a remarkably simplistic goal.  And you can't know at the time that you'll never interact with that person again.  So if you base future decisions based on your understanding of what happened here, you'll create compounding errors.

 

If I did that, I'd know that the tactic worked on that person today.  But I don't know that it would have worked on that person on another day, and I also don't know whether using it today has altered how that person perceives me, thus changing whether it would work again in future.

 

There are too many variables.  People aren't predictable.

To use a scientific example, the fact that all of our theories about science could be wrong doesn't mean we aren't designing good ipods. Your methods for making them work even if the theory underlying them is wrong. To the extent that our goal is purely instrumental - make good ipods - the metaphysical truth of the theory is irrelevant, except to whatever degree it allows us to make better ipods. And that could simply be trial and error.

General anaesthetic would be a better example.  But there (as with iPods), we have a massive dataset telling us how non-sentient objects behave in response to stimulus.

 

We have nothing like that sort of dataset with individuals, and we have the added complication that people are sentient, so they're not going to behave as predictably.

 

Look at the Monty Hall problem.  There's a lot of math that explains exactly what the best path is, and psychology tells us why most people won't choose it.  But someone then comes along and decides to randomise his choice by flipping a coin.  He just mixed his strategies.  You didn't see that coming.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Players may prefer one method over the other method which is fine, but to say one is superior to the other is opinion. For example I can roleplay Hawke or Shepard by stepping into that role and play within the limitations of the character. 

I would like to try it your way, but I can't figure out how.  How do I roleplay within the limitations of the character if I don't know what those limitations are?

[dekarserverbot]

I knee Hawke about as well as I knew Ser Jory.

 

Ser Jory was more usefull than Hawke anyways...

 

I don't mind if voiced or not as long as the character says what is on the tin, one big trouble i had with TOR was there were too many options but when i choosed one the character talked nonsense stuff that was barely related with the options shown.

[Marious287]

Give us the option in the options menu to have a voiced character or not this way every one is happy

[AlanC9]

1. My mental model of the other person's subjective state (i.e., my theory of their mind) and 
2. The actual subjective state of the other person.
 
The second point is irrelevant. It does not matter to me what you actually think or feel. All that matters is the use and predictability of my model. I can't know what you're thinking, but I can have a good model of what I think you're thinking, and it's based on this (relatively accurate) model that I'm acting.
Since I can't have number 2, I don't even bother with number 1 (as the point of number 1 is to emulate number 2, and number 2 being unknowable means that I have no mechanism by which to assess the success or failure of number 1).
 
I might be able to model your reactions, but modelling your actual thoughts would be a waste of time.

I'm a little confused by the last bit. How are you going to model reactions without modeling the thoughts that lead to the reactions? I'm having trouble conceptualizing how you'd implement such a model. It's theoretically workable since that's more or less how current thinking says consciousness works in the first place, but I don't see how you have access to the data you'd want to work the model in that direction.
 

But most of the time in-game, we don't actually get meaningful reactions. We get remarks that could mean a great many different things, and might have been caused by a great many different things. There are a number of times in DAO when Alistair reveals information to you that's terribly impotant to him, but he was keeping secret. I don't find it at all surprising, then, that sometimes he behaves unpredictably, because he admits that he sometimes has some important things on his mind which I don't know about, so I can't factor them into my predictions. And I find this is generally true of people, so trying to predict their reactions is generally a waste of time.

I haven't found any of this to be true, myself.

[AlanC9]

I would like to try it your way, but I can't figure out how.  How do I roleplay within the limitations of the character if I don't know what those limitations are?

By figuring out what the writers are up to, perhaps? I'm not sure if that's where Realmzmaster was going with that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm a little confused by the last bit. How are you going to model reactions without modeling the thoughts that lead to the reactions? I'm having trouble conceptualizing how you'd implement such a model. It's theoretically workable since that's more or less how current thinking says consciousness works in the first place, but I don't see how you have access to the data you'd want to work the model in that direction.

By measuring the inputs against the outputs, without any consideration for the mechanism between the two.

 

Because the mechanism isn't known.  So assuming one risks leading us to false conclusions.  If we have a model that predicts the outcomes correctly, but does so by assuming the wrong mechanism, we might then misuse that mechanism to predict something else.

 

For a scientific example, look at Huygens's explanation for how diffraction works.  His math was great, and he could accurately predict wave behaviour, but his explanation for what was going on was laughable.

[AlanC9]

Sure. Like I said, it's theoretically workable. I just don't see how you are going to actually do it. Well, not you, since you weren't going to ever try in the first place.

I find the occasional false conclusion to be an acceptable consequence. It was better to have Huygens' model than an unworkable model, wasn't it?

[Realmzmaster]

I would like to try it your way, but I can't figure out how.  How do I roleplay within the limitations of the character if I don't know what those limitations are?

 

If I am given information about the basic background of the character and world I can reasonably conclude the limitations of the character. Certain limitations are already set by the game system. For example dwarves cannot cast magic in DA. Elves cannot become rulers and considered second class. Mages cannot have titles. Those are set world limitations. The basic story of the character provides other hints at the character. Hawke is a refugee therefore without many resources. I can roleplay going from having something to nothing. I make reasonably assumptions in my mind and roleplay from that point.

 

I not saying it is for everyone, but it works for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If I am given information about the basic background of the character and world I can reasonably conclude the limitations of the character. Certain limitations are already set by the game system. For example dwarves cannot cast magic in DA. Elves cannot become rulers and considered second class. Mages cannot have titles. Those are set world limitations. The basic story of the character provides other hints at the character. Hawke is a refugee therefore without many resources. I can roleplay going from having something to nothing. I make reasonably assumptions in my mind and roleplay from that point.

 

I not saying it is for everyone, but it works for me.

I run into difficulties when the game makes assumptions about my character that don't seem relevant to the story.  For example, DA2 assumed that Hawke hated slavers.  Why?  It's entirely possible to have mutually beneficial dealings with slavers in the game.  So why does Hawke treat them so badly?

 

When Hawke returns the Magister's son, why does Hawke have to say that he thinks the son can be redeemed?  Is it just for show?  Why does Hawke have to care what people think of him?

 

This could just be a problem with the paraphrases, but the slaver event in particular has always troubled me.  The writers appear to have made a gigantic assumption about the PC's personality, and not bothered to tell the player about it.

[phantomrachie]

My main issue with silent characters in games were everyone else is voiced is that it means that everyone else in the world gets to have emotional reactions but not the PC.

 

In DA:O, the line my Warden spoke told me they might care about something, but their facial reactions were always blank and unemotional. This creates a huge disconnect for me between the world & the character I'm trying to role play.

 

This effect is lessened when the game is in first person like Fallout NV but that is usually because the typical Open World RPG Companion is not as well developed or fleshed out as BioWare Companion so I don't care about them in the same way. (the expect to this is Serana in Skyrim, who I love)

 

I don't feel the same way in games like Wasteland 2, were pretty much everyone is silent or Costume Quest 2, were everyone is silent.

 

In games were everyone but me has a voice, I feel like I'm being spoken at not too, like the events of the world are happening around me rather than to me.

 

This of course could all be down to how I roleplay, my character is not me and I expect them to react to emotional situations not me. 

 

I could head cannon their tone I suppose, but I find this difficult to do with their blank unemotional faces.

[Andreas Amell]

I am very glad the lead character finally has a voice in the conversations. When I'm thinking of the words I imagine my own voice and it doesn't even match the accents of the other characters.

[Ceoldoren]

I don't feel strongly one way or another, as long as we have options, I'm fine with it. 

[batlin]

"I don't like non-voiced protagonists because they have no personality"

 

Do you guys not read books?

[Muspade]

"I don't like non-voiced protagonists because they have no personality"

 

Do you guys not read books?

I don't remember books voicing everyone but the protagonist.

[Ceoldoren]

"I don't like non-voiced protagonists because they have no personality"

 

Do you guys not read books?

To be fair, reading a book, where every character is unvoiced. Is different then playing a game full of emotional characters while you stand there silent with your blank stare.

[In Exile]

"I don't like non-voiced protagonists because they have no personality"

Do you guys not read books?

Book characters have clear and defined voices. It may be that there is no audio, but that's not the same as there being no voice.

"Damn them all!" screamed Joe, his voice thick with anger and disgust.

[Vox Draco]

I run into difficulties when the game makes assumptions about my character that don't seem relevant to the story.  For example, DA2 assumed that Hawke hated slavers.  Why?  It's entirely possible to have mutually beneficial dealings with slavers in the game.  So why does Hawke treat them so badly?

 

When Hawke returns the Magister's son, why does Hawke have to say that he thinks the son can be redeemed?  Is it just for show?  Why does Hawke have to care what people think of him?

 

This could just be a problem with the paraphrases, but the slaver event in particular has always troubled me.  The writers appear to have made a gigantic assumption about the PC's personality, and not bothered to tell the player about it.

 

I think the problem is: Hawke, and even teh warden to some greater extent, are NOT your characters at all. They are created by Bioware, and they offer you slightly different versions to play. But you still have to follow their path laid out for the char to some degree. No main-char in DA is a fully blank page, like for example in skyrim, where you must fill out the char-background and personality all by yourself.

 

In DAO, you cannot play a non-cousland human fighter or rogue. This part of the background is already determined, you will always have a noble background, and you can hardly make up as if you were born and raised in the gutter, for example. So I for once don't consider the Wardens, Hawkes or Inquisitors to be fully "mine". they are, like Shepard or even Mr. Geralt of Rivia, creations of other peoples fantasy...I merely take them and shape them a little, as much as the authors allow me to.

 

That viewpoint probably makes it easier for me to accept voiced PCs...

[Sylvius the Mad]

In DAO, you cannot play a non-cousland human fighter or rogue. This part of the background is already determined, you will always have a noble background, and you can hardly make up as if you were born and raised in the gutter, for example. So I for once don't consider the Wardens, Hawkes or Inquisitors to be fully "mine". they are, like Shepard or even Mr. Geralt of Rivia, creations of other peoples fantasy...I merely take them and shape them a little, as much as the authors allow me to.

That viewpoint probably makes it easier for me to accept voiced PCs...

I don't know how to play that.

And I felt that my Wardens were absolutely my own. Only as a City Elf did I run afoul of the game's design.

[Remmirath]

You know, I would even purchase a DLC that did nothing but allow for the option of a silent PC and switch the dialogue wheel back to a list. The money would be worth it for the number of extra times I'd be able to replay the game, and the not at all inconsiderable amount I would enjoy the game more each time. It would be worth more to me than an extra NPC and certainly a good deal more than extra equipment.

I doubt that's going to happen, but just throwing it out there...
 

Weird. I don't read with a voice at all - I instantly convert the text to meaning.

I've often said that text is my first language, and that speech is my second language. I always have to translate speech to text in order to extract any meaning from it.

That's why I like subtitles so much: They save me time.

That's how I am about it, only you explained it better than I did when I attempted to do so.

I know that my brother does tend to hear things as he reads them, although before I learned that, I had assumed that everyone simply looked at the text without hearing it. He also hates having a voiced PC, so it seems unlikely that there is much of a correlation between the preference and the reading style, but I am still curious whether there is or not (he could be an exception to a general rule, after all).
 

My main issue with silent characters in games were everyone else is voiced is that it means that everyone else in the world gets to have emotional reactions but not the PC.
 
In DA:O, the line my Warden spoke told me they might care about something, but their facial reactions were always blank and unemotional. This creates a huge disconnect for me between the world & the character I'm trying to role play.

I would much rather simply be able to imagine the emotional reaction that my character has than have them be assigned one by the game that I don't agree with, which happens all too often with the voiced PC. That is taking away the ability to roleplay your character as you choose, to make your character your character, and for what I consider relatively little benefit.

Also, since the dialogue focuses on your characters face much less often without the voice, whether or not your character has a facial expression doesn't come up as much.
 

In games were everyone but me has a voice, I feel like I'm being spoken at not too, like the events of the world are happening around me rather than to me.
 
This of course could all be down to how I roleplay, my character is not me and I expect them to react to emotional situations not me. 
 
I could head cannon their tone I suppose, but I find this difficult to do with their blank unemotional faces.

That's interesting. I very definitely take the angle that my character is not me. All of my characters are quite different from me. I still want to be able to control what they are doing, and not have the game hijack them. If the game starts making my character do things I didn't want them to do, that is making it feel less like it's my character.
 

I don't remember books voicing everyone but the protagonist.

Books are entirely silent, yet the characters are still believable. I believe that was the point.
 

I think the problem is: Hawke, and even teh warden to some greater extent, are NOT your characters at all. They are created by Bioware, and they offer you slightly different versions to play. But you still have to follow their path laid out for the char to some degree. No main-char in DA is a fully blank page, like for example in skyrim, where you must fill out the char-background and personality all by yourself.

In that case, they should stop calling them roleplaying games.

I'm pretty sure that their intention was, at least as of Origins, still that it is your character. I become less convinced that they are still of that intention recently, but -- voice/wheel aside -- Inquisition has thus far mostly looked positive in that area. Yes, of course you have to follow the plot and path they've laid out to some degree -- such are the limitations of programming. They cannot account for every variable. And, while you do have some limitations with regards to background, and least in Origins you were completely free to make your character's personality entirely on your own. The voice does clamp down on this in DA II, but there's still a bit of room.
 

In DAO, you cannot play a non-cousland human fighter or rogue. This part of the background is already determined, you will always have a noble background, and you can hardly make up as if you were born and raised in the gutter, for example. So I for once don't consider the Wardens, Hawkes or Inquisitors to be fully "mine". they are, like Shepard or even Mr. Geralt of Rivia, creations of other peoples fantasy...I merely take them and shape them a little, as much as the authors allow me to.

That viewpoint probably makes it easier for me to accept voiced PCs...

That's true. In many tabletop games, you also have some limitations. The GM may tell you that you all need to be from the same city, or advise you that if you want to play a nobleman, you would be best served to be from a particular house, for example. That doesn't mean you're not making your character, and it also doesn't mean that in the context of a computer game.

Geralt isn't your character. That's why I don't consider The Witcher to be quite a roleplaying game. Shepard is very much on the borderline, and DA II was only a little farther away from the border. Origins, however, certainly left plenty of room for it to be your character.

It's completely fine if that's the view you take on roleplaying, but that is definitely not the view that everyone takes. If the game is forcing me to play like that, I am not going to like it very much, with extremely rare exceptions (Planescape: Torment being the only one thus far, and that was a different case).

I didn't have any problem at all playing the character I wanted to in Origins. None. I had some issues in DA II, which were mostly due to the voice and the wheel. If one could remove those, there still would be a few, but not nearly so many.

[pdusen]

Geralt isn't your character. That's why I don't consider The Witcher to be quite a roleplaying game. Shepard is very much on the borderline, and DA II was only a little farther away from the border. Origins, however, certainly left plenty of room for it to be your character.

 

That's kind of bending the definition of roleplaying, isn't it? You're still playing a role. The fact that it's not one you invented is kind of irrelevant. By that standard, DnD ceases to be a roleplaying game any time you use prebuilt characters.

[Eudaemonium]

I must admit, maybe it's because i grew up playing JRPGs and not DnD or something, but the apparent fixation on RPGs being predominantly about player-constructed characters from which any deviation is a denial of role-playing is… really bizarre. Like, it just highlights to me the incomprehensibility of other human desires.

[Vox Draco]

That's kind of bending the definition of roleplaying, isn't it? You're still playing a role. The fact that it's not one you invented is kind of irrelevant. By that standard, DnD ceases to be a roleplaying game any time you use prebuilt characters.

 

Yes. Even with Geralt you can have a lot of options how to react, to behave, the decisions to make, not much different to any Warden or Hawke. So its a bit unfair to deny him and others like him the status of roleplay-game (though, one might argue that you always roleplay anyway, whether you are Warden, Hawke, Skyrim-char, gordon Freeman, Doomguy or Lara Croft...?)

 

Thinking about this whole stuff a bit more, maybe one reason why I have less issues with voiced main chars is that I also never really see the main-chars as my own avatars ... I have a rather distant view on all of them. It's never ME saving Ferelden, but I follow a char like in a book/story, of course making up little side-stories in my mind as I go (dreadful fan-fiction! ).

 

And I do this same thing with, for example, book-characters like Danaerys or movie-characters like Luke Skywalker. So I never really bother anyway with voiced heroes...