572 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Modern BioWare games really are a lot like JRPGs.

I had a roommate once who played JRPGs (on a PSX he actually bought from me), and he would go on anf on about how he wanted to find out what happened in the story of some game (I think it was Xenogears), and I found his comments really strange, as I had never really cared about the story an RPG was trying to tell.

But I had just before this (when I owned the console) tried my first JRPG - Final Fantasy VII - and I was amazed that this game expected me to control Cloud without being able to make any meaningful decisions on hus behalf. My dislike of FF7 was so great that I played it for less than an hour, and then promptly sold the console.

[Remmirath]

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.

I'd say the other way around is bending the definition. I do accept that The Witcher and other games with pre-built characters do technically fall within the genre of roleplaying games, but I don't consider it irrelevant at all that you didn't create the character. I don't have much if any interest in running through might've-been scenarios with other people's characters; I want to make my own character and see what they would do in the world. If the character isn't mine in the first place, it becomes an annoying guessing game, not only of what the character should be doing but whether they're even a character I'm going to like at all.

I wouldn't see the point of playing D&D with prebuilt characters either, if you're talking prebuilt in terms of personality as well as stats (I wouldn't do prebuilt stats either, but that's a different thing). I suppose there are people who play tabletop games with prebuilt characters, but I don't think it's very many. I've certainly never personally run into anyone who does that except perhaps at one-off games at conventions or such.
 

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.

Could be. I consider your viewpoint to be similarly not-quite-comprehensible. That's the reason I've never been remotely interested in JRPGs. If I didn't want to play my own character within the world, why would I play a roleplaying game as opposed to any other kind of game? I don't understand that. Playing a character that isn't mine enters into some strange grey area where I'm making decisions for a character that I don't even actually know enough about to begin with to make the decisions for, but I'm not in control enough of them to actually make the decision that it is how they would react. It's mostly frustrating, and it strikes me as a very odd design decision.
 

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...?)

I realise that there are decisions to be made and all for Geralt (and from what I hear, the game does do reasonably well with the amount of choice involved), but at the core of it, you're playing somebody else's character, and that's a very different thing to me. Especially in that case, where it's actually a character that has been written about. I'd feel like I would need to read all of the books and then keep his behaviour as consistent as possible with what I saw in them. Planescape: Torment is more of a grey area, because there's no predefined personality to that particular incarnation of the Nameless One.

And sure, to some extent, one can often roleplay in games that aren't roleplaying games. There isn't usually much if any support for it within the game, so it's mostly if not entirely an in-your-head thing, but it can be done. One can also play a roleplaying game without roleplaying at all. It's all fairly hazy. If a game is specifically billed as a roleplaying game, however, I think it's not unreasonable to expect at least some capability to make a character.
 

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...

What you're used to thinking of as an RPG probably does have something to do with it. I did grow up playing tabletop games, starting with AD&D and then moving on to various other editions of D&D, Rolemaster, and Traveller. I've also been acting for about as long, so I tend to see the interpreting-a-character type roleplaying games more as acting, and the creating-a-character type as true roleplaying. I admit it's hardly a universal classification, and everybody seems to have their own personal definition of what is and isn't roleplaying, so it's a difficult thing to carry on a meaningful debate about. I've also always been very set on not changing anything about books I read and such; in fact, if playing in an already established setting (MERP, for example), I'll go out of my way to avoid having to play characters that are established in the setting for fear that I'd get it not quite right. Fan fiction's never been my thing at all.

I never play roleplaying games as me. I would find that boring. I like playing characters who are very different from myself, and react very differently in the situations that they're placed in. I want to be in as complete control as possible of the character that I've made, however. Playing a roleplaying game is very different for me from reading a book or watching a film. I'm just going to watch the characters in the book or film, and I've no interest in pondering what they might've done, only in seeing that they did. Playing a character in a roleplaying game is, to me, more like writing a character in a book or a film.
 

Modern BioWare games really are a lot like JRPGs.

I had a roommate once who played JRPGs (on a PSX he actually bought from me), and he would go on anf on about how he wanted to find out what happened in the story of some game (I think it was Xenogears), and I found his comments really strange, as I had never really cared about the story an RPG was trying to tell.

But I had just before this (when I owned the console) tried my first JRPG - Final Fantasy VII - and I was amazed that this game expected me to control Cloud without being able to make any meaningful decisions on hus behalf. My dislike of FF7 was so great that I played it for less than an hour, and then promptly sold the console.

Unfortunately, yes. I've nothing against JRPGs as games -- although they are not to my taste -- but I've never been able to understand why they're called RPGs. They seem more like some form of visual novel or adventure game to me, and I've never been much interested in those. I did play one of the earlier Final Fantasies for a while with somebody I know (I don't remember which one, it was sprite-based), but I became bored of it very quickly.

I care somewhat about the story the RPG is telling, but almost entirely within the context of how my character will react to that story. If I'm playing a character that's not my own, it greatly diminishes my enjoyment of all aspects of the game. At that point, I'd rather either play some other kind of game, or read a book if it's a story I'm after. For an RPG, my primary concern and enjoyment is seeing how my character(s) will react to the situations, setting, combat, and so forth within the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

It depends how pre-built they are.

Ultimately, my problem with Shepard and Hawke isn't that I didn't create them; it's that i don't get to control them. I don't mind pre-made characters (Torment, arguably KotOR), but I need to be the one deciding what they do and why. And i don't get to do that in ME or DA2.

[pdusen]

It depends how pre-built they are.

Ultimately, my problem with Shepard and Hawke isn't that I didn't create them; it's that i don't get to control them. I don't mind pre-made characters (Torment, arguably KotOR), but I need to be the one deciding what they do and why. And i don't get to do that in ME or DA2.

 

That's fair, I was just rejecting the notion that any game where you don't make the character can't be a roleplaying game.

[Doominike]

Well there's still a limit, you don't RP, to take an exemple from up there, Lara Croft, you don't choose anything about her character. Geralt is pretty borderline because you still make some decisions. Shepard is still mostly yours (though seemingly less so as the trilogy advanced). Hawke is only about half-yours tbh, as most people will stick with one kind of answer and auto-dialogue will fill in with the preferred kind, so it's more like BW made 3 Hawkes (in terms of general persona) and you pick which one you want, though you're still free to make up all unmentioned details and secrets. The Warden was only really given a base and a loose framework by BW, everything else about them is yours

[Joe-Poe]

I prefer a voiced character...what i don't want is auto-dialogue, my character should remain silent unless i tell him what to say (no more ME3 type of why is shepard talking and why is he saying something that is out of character for my shepard... ).

 

And I don't want dialogue I choose to effect my characters personality as a game mechanic, thats my job as a player....

 

So im jote to keep the voiced character but keep the above out of it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I prefer a voiced character...what i don't want is auto-dialogue, my character should remain silent unless i tell him what to say (no more ME3 type of why is shepard talking and why is he saying something that is out of character for my shepard... ).

And I don't want dialogue I choose to effect my characters personality as a game mechanic, thats my job as a player....

So im jote to keep the voiced character but keep the above out of it.

What you describe would be a voiced PC, but without rhe drawbacks inherent in the paraphrase or the dominant tone system.

Luckily, they have abandoned the dominant tone. It remains to be seen whether they've improved the paraphrase.

[sharkboy421]

What you describe would be a voiced PC, but without rhe drawbacks inherent in the paraphrase or the dominant tone system.

Luckily, they have abandoned the dominant tone. It remains to be seen whether they've improved the paraphrase.

I believe Bioware did say that if you hover over a dialogue choice for a moment the paraphrase text will be replaced with the full line of dialogue that will be spoken.  It was from one of the earlier convention demos they showed I think.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I believe Bioware did say that if you hover over a dialogue choice for a moment the paraphrase text will be replaced with the full line of dialogue that will be spoken. It was from one of the earlier convention demos they showed I think.

The hovering text is actually a description of the effect of choosing that option, not the line itself.

[PhroXenGold]

Unfortunately, yes. I've nothing against JRPGs as games -- although they are not to my taste -- but I've never been able to understand why they're called RPGs. They seem more like some form of visual novel or adventure game to me, and I've never been much interested in those. I did play one of the earlier Final Fantasies for a while with somebody I know (I don't remember which one, it was sprite-based), but I became bored of it very quickly.

 

It's nice to see other people with this opinion. I've voiced it before (not here) and usually get heavily criticsed for it. And this is coming from someone who likes quite a few so-called "JRPGs" [Chrono Trigger and FFVI remain two of my all time favourite games] - they're simply not role playing games. You very rarely get to actually role play the characters. You control them in battle, you might get to level them up, but you never actually control their character, their personality. You don't control how they react to events. You can't influence the story at all.  Those things are what roleplaying is about.

 

As a contrast, here's a game which I consider to be one of the finest RPGs of recent years, yet I doubt many people would put in in that category: The Walking Dead. Sure, there's no levelling up, there no loot, many of the things oft-associated with RPGs are missing, but at it's core, it lets you roleplay the lead character in a way very few games, even including most RPGs, do.

[Br3admax]

The difference between an action game and an RPG is not that you have control over the character, it's the focus of most of the developmental time and intention of the product. If Dragon's Dogma can be an RPG, if Dark Souls can be an RPG, if Shovel Knight can be an rpg, so can any JRPG. 

[PhroXenGold]

The difference between an action game and an RPG is not that you have control over the character, it's the focus of most of the developmental time and intention of the product. If Dragon's Dogma can be an RPG, if Dark Souls can be an RPG, if Shovel Knight can be an rpg, so can any JRPG. 

 

I wouldn't call Dark Souls an RPG. It's an action game. And thats not a criticism of it by any means, just a description. It's a great game (albeit one I utterly suck at). But it's not an RPG. There's nothing really in the way of roleplaying.

 

Same as Diablo. Not an RPG in any way shape or form. Very entertaining, the second one in particular, but no roleplaying.

[IamTheXena]

I Love the voice over on PC's. Just sayin'...

[LinksOcarina]

I wouldn't call Dark Souls an RPG. It's an action game. And thats not a criticism of it by any means, just a description. It's a great game (albeit one I utterly suck at). But it's not an RPG. There's nothing really in the way of roleplaying.

 

Same as Diablo. Not an RPG in any way shape or form. Very entertaining, the second one in particular, but no roleplaying.

 

Ok, I may not like either of those games, but that is some bullshit right there. 

 

Here is the problem people have, everyone in their minds has a definition for what a Role Playing Game is. Everyone is also wrong in their definition because it has no definition. Diablo is no more or less a RPG than Mass Effect or Final Fantasy, it's an RPG with different stylistic or mechanical choices but follows the mechanical tenets of what makes it a Role Playing Game, and focuses on one aspect over others on the bartle scale. 

 

We also have this issue with labels like JRPG, WRPG, CRPG, and so forth that are really poor labels to define anything, because they carry with them too many connotations of style or gameplay. For example, Betrayal at Krondor, an old school PC game, is more akin to Final Fantasy VII due to the turn based combat it contains, with branching dialogue like Dragon Age. It shares none of the "typical" characteristics of a mechanical "CRPG", which is often categorized as an isometric, real-time combative experience in terms of mechanics. That's an argument for another day but it's part of the reason why these discussion keep popping up, I feel. 

 

What you are basically saying is that an RPG is only a set-style of mechanics that each game must be defined by, mostly through  the tenant of controlling your characters personality. That is a very gross definition because what determines it to be a Role Playing Game is then always defined, and everything else is just a pretender. That is simply not the reality, because most RPG's never really gave you a personality to begin with, that's a new innovation. That came about with some early Ultima Games (rudimentary at least) and really took off Thanks to Black Isle, Obsidian and BioWare in the late 1990s.  Keep in mind the history here, most were dungeon crawlers where you controlled a cadre of adventurers who traversed dungeons or open worlds to deal with monsters and puzzles, or loot. The draw was that aspect, not the actual role-playing of characters. Game's like Wizardry and Black Onyx are the legacy of games like Final Fantasy and Baldur's Gate. 

 

It's like saying anything Non-D20 is not a Role Playing Game basically. You believe you can get maximun enjoyment out of a d20 game because it lets you roleplay better, yet it limits yourself to what you prefer, but not what is necessarily correct or even widely believed. There is a reason why Fate and custom-system games exist of course. Some are good, some are bad, but they are just as valid. 

[Eudaemonium]

Could be. I consider your viewpoint to be similarly not-quite-comprehensible. That's the reason I've never been remotely interested in JRPGs. If I didn't want to play my own character within the world, why would I play a roleplaying game as opposed to any other kind of game? I don't understand that. Playing a character that isn't mine enters into some strange grey area where I'm making decisions for a character that I don't even actually know enough about to begin with to make the decisions for, but I'm not in control enough of them to actually make the decision that it is how they would react. It's mostly frustrating, and it strikes me as a very odd design decision.

 

I think part of the difference is the way video games have evolved. You have to also remember that I was always fundamentally a console gamer. It used to be the case that 'RPG' basically meant 'this game has a plot', it was the game equivalent of a novel as opposed to, I dunno, not a novel? As gaming has evolved and most games have stories now, no matter how terrible (and most console RPGs also have terrible stories) the distinction has become less distinct. But I think the novel comparison kind of still works: I play RPGs primarily to experience characters and story, not necessarily to craft that story in any meaningful fashion. That's probably why Bioware's curious WRPG/JRPG hybrid style works so well for me. I actually often say that in terms of RP-ing Hawke was pretty much my ideal protagonist, since I found him/her simultaneously malleable enough and yet enough of a set character that I enjoyed seeing them play their part in the story. That alone sets me pretty far apart from the vast majority of DA fans it seems.

[simpatikool]

I liked the Voiced main character. What bothers me is the reaction wheel. In prior Bioware games, the wheel has not been an accurate reflection of the dialogue or what I want to convey. I learned to back off that and just sort of roll with the overarching intent of the dialogue wheel choice.

[Remmirath]

The tone and subtext being chosen by the voice actor is what really bothers me the most about the voice. I could deal with having only a couple of ways my character can sound, so long as I could control the inflection of responses; that wouldn't be much worse than the choose-a-head but no portrait days. If choosing the head would've led to them always acting in a certain way, I would have had just as large a problem with that. In a perfect world, where you could control the character's subtext and tone anyhow, being able to choose their voice (to the same extent you can choose the face now) would be neat.

I don't see any merit whatsoever in the paraphrase system.
 

Ok, I may not like either of those games, but that is some bullshit right there. 
 
Here is the problem people have, everyone in their minds has a definition for what a Role Playing Game is. Everyone is also wrong in their definition because it has no definition. Diablo is no more or less a RPG than Mass Effect or Final Fantasy, it's an RPG with different stylistic or mechanical choices but follows the mechanical tenets of what makes it a Role Playing Game, and focuses on one aspect over others on the bartle scale.

That is the problem with such discussions, yes. "Roleplaying game" has always been a poorly defined term, so you either have to come up with your own definition, or decide that it's so broad a category as to be meaningless. It seems to be especially ill-defined with regards to computer games, because tabletop games are much more consistent in terms of basic elements.

Basing it specifically on the mechanics seems off to me. There are certains mechanics that often accompany certain styles of roleplaying game, but they aren't what makes it a roleplaying game, at least not in my opinion. You could have a game with all the mechanics of Baldur's Gate, but if you had to always play through the game as Minsc and could not choose what he said, that wouldn't be a roleplaying game any longer -- at least not in my eyes. I'm sure there are some who would disagree with me on that.
 

It's like saying anything Non-D20 is not a Role Playing Game basically. You believe you can get maximun enjoyment out of a d20 game because it lets you roleplay better, yet it limits yourself to what you prefer, but not what is necessarily correct or even widely believed. There is a reason why Fate and custom-system games exist of course. Some are good, some are bad, but they are just as valid.

No, it would be like saying that a wargame isn't a roleplaying game. They share much in common, and it's somewhat possible to roleplay while playing them -- they are, after, the forebears of roleplaying games -- but they still aren't the same thing.

I certainly like, for example, Rolemaster more than World of Darkness, but they're both quite clearly roleplaying games. The reason I prefer one over the other has entirely to do with the mechanics of the system, which I consider to not be directly tied to roleplaying. I've never yet encountered a tabletop RPG system that I wouldn't consider to be a roleplaying game, even those such as 4E D&D, which have mechanics I dislike sufficiently that I refuse to play them.

I don't think you're going to find a pen and paper roleplaying system that doesn't let you create your character; that's the one thing that they all have in common. I think it is, therefore, not unreasonable to use that as a definition of what is and isn't an RPG. Computer games obviously have more limits imposed on them in that regard than face to face games do, and that needs to be taken into account.
 

I think part of the difference is the way video games have evolved. You have to also remember that I was always fundamentally a console gamer. It used to be the case that 'RPG' basically meant 'this game has a plot', it was the game equivalent of a novel as opposed to, I dunno, not a novel? As gaming has evolved and most games have stories now, no matter how terrible (and most console RPGs also have terrible stories) the distinction has become less distinct. But I think the novel comparison kind of still works: I play RPGs primarily to experience characters and story, not necessarily to craft that story in any meaningful fashion. That's probably why Bioware's curious WRPG/JRPG hybrid style works so well for me. I actually often say that in terms of RP-ing Hawke was pretty much my ideal protagonist, since I found him/her simultaneously malleable enough and yet enough of a set character that I enjoyed seeing them play their part in the story. That alone sets me pretty far apart from the vast majority of DA fans it seems.

That sounds likely. I've never been a console gamer at all; I've only ever even used a console once or twice at a friend's house, so essentially all of my gaming has been done on the PC, and the only gaming I've ever done on the console has been very casual. The two console roleplaying games I spent some time playing with my family once, Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance and Champions of Norrath, actually illustrate the difference between a roleplaying game and not a roleplaying game quite well to me: Dark Alliance isn't, Champions is. (This leaving aside my opinion on the quality of either.)

From my point of view, the term RPG has always been about the roleplaying, and about making your characters. I did start playing tabletop games (AD&D first) before I played any computer RPGs, so my expectations with regards to roleplaying games were probably set by that. Baldur's Gate was the first computer RPG I played, and despite some necessary limitations, it still met my original definition quite well.

I don't actually care a particular amount whether my character can have much of an impact on the story of the game, although it's nice if they can. I care whether I can create and play the character to a sufficient extent that I'm experiencing the setting and story and all feeling as though I'm playing my character, not sort of controlling somebody else's.

Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate II, Knights of the Old Republic, and Dragon Age: Origins all worked quite well for me from that point of view (although, of course, KotOR was a bit different). Jade Empire didn't, and the more recent games with the voiced PC and the dialogue wheel don't. I have to constantly struggle against those things in order to enjoy the game.

At this point, though, it's quite clear that their fanbase is split three ways on the issue: some would agree with you (I have seen that opinion expressed a fair amount in these topics), some would agree with me (again, that comes up in these), and some just don't really care. That's why I don't really understand their refusal to add a no-voice option or even DLC; it would probably be one of the better moves to unsplit the fanbase they could make, at this point.
 

I liked the Voiced main character. What bothers me is the reaction wheel. In prior Bioware games, the wheel has not been an accurate reflection of the dialogue or what I want to convey. I learned to back off that and just sort of roll with the overarching intent of the dialogue wheel choice.

Not knowing what your character is actually going to say, and thus not being able to actually choose the most in-character option/least out-of-character option, is indeed the largest problem with the whole setup. I could stomach the voiced PC much better if I at least actually knew what they were going to say or do. I would still have several other problems with it, but it wouldn't as much of a hassle, that's for sure.

I'm not sure whether the whole "finding out the results" thing is actually going to help or not. I would really rather know what my character is going to say and do rather than what is going to happen because of that, and I'm afraid that's all we're going to get. Knowing the results helps you control the story as you like, I suppose, but it's precious little help in controlling your character's actions (although I suppose it should at least prevent accidentally punching people in the face, so that's something).

[R0vena]

At this point, though, it's quite clear that their fanbase is split three ways on the issue: some would agree with you (I have seen that opinion expressed a fair amount in these topics), some would agree with me (again, that comes up in these), and some just don't really care. That's why I don't really understand their refusal to add a no-voice option or even DLC; it would probably be one of the better moves to unsplit the fanbase they could make, at this point.
 

I imagine the silent hero would look rather weird in the cut scenes. The lip animation would still be there and no voice coming out seems... odd, at best.

 

I myself is in the middle ground, I don't care about voice much and like Warden and Hawke equally. Absence or presence of voice in my protagonist does not hinder my role-playing.

[Remmirath]

I imagine the silent hero would look rather weird in the cut scenes. The lip animation would still be there and no voice coming out seems... odd, at best.

Well, the ideal would be to cut out/not insert (I don't know how it works in this engine) that entire section of the animation with the PC talking, and reverting the dialogue tree back to list format or only choosing the paraphrase. I would still prefer the silent lip animation, personally.

If that were an expensive thing to do, I know of a good many people who would pay for a voiceless/list DLC, if such a thing were to occur. If not, I see no reason that I consider a good one not to have it as an option in the base game.
 

I myself is in the middle ground, I don't care about voice much and like Warden and Hawke equally. Absence or presence of voice in my protagonist does not hinder my role-playing.

Considering the way things are going, I rather wish I could say the same.

[Beltan]

Everyone wants their own Bioware game it seems. From endings to voices, from dialog wheel to inflections of the voice actor (are you kidding me??) we all want our own dang game.

 

Wow. I've never heard of this for movies, for songs, for musicals, for concerts. We've never complained that Tom Cruise said the wrong thing when he said "You can't handle the truth", or when Haley Joel Osmet looked scared and cowered when he said "I see dead people". Heck. Even "Choose Your Own Adventures" had much more limited choices, and no one saw fit to complain about the "severely limited choices available in the book!"

 

It seems silly to me that people are demanding that the actor's voice inflections be changed or that Bioware should stop developing how they want to develop. If a person doesn't like the way they're developed (paraphrasing vs literal dialog in the wheel, as an example), we can find another developer who puts EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT in the game. And all power to yah! Heck, go ahead and develop your own game that has exactly what you want. Then create a forum in which people can give you a feedback that is exact opposite of what you deliberately chose 

 

 

 

 

[Vox Draco]

Everyone wants their own Bioware game it seems. From endings to voices, from dialog wheel to inflections of the voice actor (are you kidding me??) we all want our own dang game.

 

Wow. I've never heard of this for movies, for songs, for musicals, for concerts. We've never complained that Tom Cruise said the wrong thing when he said "You can't handle the truth", or when Haley Joel Osmet looked scared and cowered when he said "I see dead people". Heck. Even "Choose Your Own Adventures" had much more limited choices, and no one saw fit to complain about the "severely limited choices available in the book!"

 

It seems silly to me that people are demanding that the actor's voice inflections be changed or that Bioware should stop developing how they want to develop. If a person doesn't like the way they're developed (paraphrasing vs literal dialog in the wheel, as an example), we can find another developer who puts EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT in the game. And all power to yah! Heck, go ahead and develop your own game that has exactly what you want. Then create a forum in which people can give you a feedback that is exact opposite of what you deliberately chose 

 

I guess movies/books are simply less interactive than games, which give you the illusion of being in control of the story (which, of course, is only so much the case)

 

Though I would argue that Disney/Star Wars gets a lot of demands from fans what they want or not want...or GRR Martin (well, mostly fans just want ANOTHER DAMN BOOK! and of course Tyrion to be king and stuff)

 

And you are right. In the end, you have to deal with the product the devs give you. They have to go through with their own vision (though it has the danger of ME3-idiocy, a case where any kind of Fan-Fiction is superior to the actual game...), and even kickstarter-games can only cater so much to any kind of wanted feature from their backers. Its simply impossible to make everyone happy, you will tear yourself apart and the product will suffer...

 

There are a lot of RPGs with (mostly) unvoiced PCs..but for Bioware this doesn't fit that good anymore. Its simply out of place in a world where everything is cinematic and every little piece of NPC-dialogue is voiced. But this discussion will go on, and why not? Its still so much time til release

[Remmirath]

Everyone wants their own Bioware game it seems. From endings to voices, from dialog wheel to inflections of the voice actor (are you kidding me??) we all want our own dang game.

I don't believe that altering the inflection is actually realistic at all. Maybe some time in the future, but I know full well that it can't be done now, and isn't reasonable to ask.

I want a return to the PC's lines not being voiced. That's it. Also, even people who like the voice have had issues with the dialogue wheel/paraphrasing. At the very least, it still needs work.
 

Wow. I've never heard of this for movies, for songs, for musicals, for concerts. We've never complained that Tom Cruise said the wrong thing when he said "You can't handle the truth", or when Haley Joel Osmet looked scared and cowered when he said "I see dead people". Heck. Even "Choose Your Own Adventures" had much more limited choices, and no one saw fit to complain about the "severely limited choices available in the book!"

Movies, songs, musicals, and concerts, are not roleplaying games. There is no claim, no assumption whatsoever, that you'll have any control at all over what you're watching. There's no reason to have this complaint. Clearly you have a very different idea of a roleplaying game than some people here, if you think any of those examples are relevant. If you were watching a movie where you were told that the main character was your character, and yet you could not control what they were saying, you'd have every right to complain about that. That's not how movies work, though.

"Choose Your Own Adventure" books come the closest, but still, it's a rare one that lets you make your own character. They mostly can be best compared with an adventure game, which is a different genre with different expectations.
 

It seems silly to me that people are demanding that the actor's voice inflections be changed or that Bioware should stop developing how they want to develop. If a person doesn't like the way they're developed (paraphrasing vs literal dialog in the wheel, as an example), we can find another developer who puts EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT in the game. And all power to yah! Heck, go ahead and develop your own game that has exactly what you want. Then create a forum in which people can give you a feedback that is exact opposite of what you deliberately chose

Given that the Dragon Age series started out with an unvoiced PC and no dialogue wheel, I don't think it's unreasonable to voice our preferences that it had stayed that way or would go back to that way, especially since for some (myself included) that was a very large part of why we didn't like DA II as much. That combination was a mark against the Mass Effect series for me, but I wouldn't've posted in that area pointing it out, because that's how it was from the beginning (although, of course, if anyone actually asks me why I didn't like that series as much, I will point it out). I find it reasonable to point out, in a feedback forum, something that you find to be a crippling flaw, not just a minor nuisance.

Again, it's unrealistic to expect to be able to alter the voice. I was pointing out that, since that cannot be done, it's better to have no voice.

Point out another developer of single-player games who does let you create your own character, has at least a few games with a more serious tone, and isn't Bethesda or Obsidian (nothing against either of them, but I already know about them and have played all their currently-out games that I'm interested in). Aside from older games, what else is there? You tell me, and I'll be quite happy to check it out.

[Beltan]

 

There are a lot of RPGs with (mostly) unvoiced PCs..but for Bioware this doesn't fit that good anymore. Its simply out of place in a world where everything is cinematic and every little piece of NPC-dialogue is voiced. But this discussion will go on, and why not? Its still so much time til release

You're right; Bioware is going for that cinematic environment. I'm all for it. A friend told me I probably couldn't stand older RPGs since my first real one was Mass Effect. . . I'm looking forward to this game and what the future holds. I'm not worrying about all the games that came before. I'll settle for the new and exciting.

 

I propose we all take a 4-week break from complaining about long-past games and complaining about what MIGHT be in DAI or what the mechanics exactly might be.

 

Let's just relax for four weeks. Get some exercise, get some sun in this ever-shortening days (for those of us in the northern hemisphere), cuddle with our significant other, in essence, prepare for our long, marathon, butt-numbing sessions of the new one.  We all know we won't eat well, sleep well, exercise enough, or pay attention to our significant others during the first 6-8 weeks after november 18.

[RevilFox]

Everyone wants their own Bioware game it seems. From endings to voices, from dialog wheel to inflections of the voice actor (are you kidding me??) we all want our own dang game.

 

Wow. I've never heard of this for movies, for songs, for musicals, for concerts. We've never complained that Tom Cruise said the wrong thing when he said "You can't handle the truth", or when Haley Joel Osmet looked scared and cowered when he said "I see dead people". Heck. Even "Choose Your Own Adventures" had much more limited choices, and no one saw fit to complain about the "severely limited choices available in the book!"

 

It seems silly to me that people are demanding that the actor's voice inflections be changed or that Bioware should stop developing how they want to develop. If a person doesn't like the way they're developed (paraphrasing vs literal dialog in the wheel, as an example), we can find another developer who puts EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT in the game. And all power to yah! Heck, go ahead and develop your own game that has exactly what you want. Then create a forum in which people can give you a feedback that is exact opposite of what you deliberately chose 

Actually, there is one other fanbase that is exactly the same as video game fans in this respect; Pro Wrestling fans. It's the only other medium where the fans feel that the creators NEED to do things they way they want to see them, and are more likely to decry them as "stupid" or "clueless" than simply go along for the ride. 

 

But yes, beyond video games and pro wrestling this type of thinking doesn't really exist.