572 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Indeed, although I don't believe things are ever that cut and dry. I can see two styles mingled, but have trouble conceptualizing a design that embraces all three.

Interestingly, I find The Big Theory to not be as applicable to video game design.

Agreed.

[Gothfather]

And if I only wanted to play the game once, that might matter.

Also, one of the advantages of a roleplaying game compared to real life is that you get to choose who you are.

 

Yawn.

 

So someone how you are so hard done by that 4 voices means you only can play the game once because of the voice acting? Really? You can't stretch your imagination far enough to see that you could play the game 4 times without any repetition in the protaganist's voice?

 

That is ONE of the advantages but we never had voices before so giving you a voice doesn't take away any of your past options now it gives you another option to the choices you make. ANd character creation has ALWAYS been LIMITED by the tools the game gave you to make a character, this is not something new or that only applies to voice acting. In past RPGs sometimes gave a choice was a choice between A & B. So Voice acting at its inception was no different, now we are seeing a broadening of our choices.

 

I get you don't like it but that is a subjective opinion and there are a LOT of people who do. So far the remove it camp has failed to provide any evidence that it objectively is better to remove voices.

[Gothfather]

I will say that having two options to choose from per gender as opposed to no options at all is a step in the right direction, if they must continue to voice the PC. No matter how strongly I dislike having a PC voice at all, I admit that some small amount of choice is better than no choice at all.

However, it would've provided almost infinitely more choice and replayability and been far less resource-intensive to either not voice the PC or to allow the option of having the PC not voiced.

Edit: With regards to the Arena/Skyrim comparison, I think a more reasonable comparison would be Morrowind and Skyrim. Personally, I'd say that between the two, Morrowind is the better game.

And why would people failing to identify with an unvoiced character not be their own personal failing then? Either it is a personal failing in both cases, or it is not one in either. I say it's a matter of preference, but that in a roleplaying game greater choice for and control of the character should win out against a more cinematic experience. One should not ever be surprised by something one's own character does in an RPG.

The voiced PC doesn't cause any limitation in story, or at least not a significant one. It causes a very significant problem to roleplaying the character, which is the problem with it.
 /snip due to comments directed at other post

 

I think it is a personal failing of people who can't identify with an unvoice protaganist. I also think it is a personal failing of people to have discriminator views. I am not providing a list of all the possible failings a person can have. I am having a debate on the merits of removing protaganist voice acting. People often cite that voice acting prevents their immersion or being able to identify with their character. Pointing out that inability to do so is a personaly failing is a valid point and just because the point can be used in the reverse manner doesn't negate the point. A person's inability to identify with a protaganist's voice or unvoiced states is very valid.

 

If this was Skyrim form and people where using the argument that they can't identify with an unvoiced character, it would be proper to say that is their own peronal failing and not a valid argument for adding voice acting. Likewise it is perfectly valid for me to say the inability of a person not to identify with a character because it is voice acted is a personal failing and not a valid argument to remove it.

 

Simply because the argument can be used in both positions doesn't mean they cancel each other out so that means i can claim voice acting hurts my roleplaying.

 

I have never EVER had voice acting curb my ability to roleplay a character, and my ME shepards have had vastly different personalities. I HAVE experienced choice options in a situation that HAVE hurt my roleplaying. This is a failing of the media as a whole it has nothing to do with voice acting. Voice acting does NOTHING to the mechanics of the writing. The writing determines the assumptions of why you made the choices and the actual choices you are given. The acting does not create or destroy these options its simply acts out the options the writer gives you.

 

People are blaming the limitations of RPG games in general on voice acting and it just doesn't hold up as an argument

[Gothfather]

Did you ever try viewing Shephard or your Hawke as someone else? Someone you created that wasn't yourself? Someone with their own visions, motives and desires? That's where the strength of a silent protagonist lies and where a voiced protagonist infringes.

Err i viewed all my Hawkes and Shepards are someone I created who wasn't myself, they all had their own motives and desires. Yes some had lots of over lap with myself personally but some were so far from me that there was no overlap not even in gender. Yet i always felt that when i was playing I was that Shepard or that hawke. The Shepards or Hawkes were not me but i was them because I controlled their motivations and actions and I was teh architech of their personalities. Writing was the limitation of that experience not voice acting. Writers determine what my choices are, writers determine what my motivations are in making those choices. The voice acting doesn't do that.

 

The limitations of the computer RPG is that the writers make all the choice options for you. This is completely seperate from voice acting. Voice acting doesn't create choice it doesn't create motivation that is already created by the writer the voice actor simply gives voice to limitations that were already present in the game since the advent of text RPGs like Zork.

 

So I ask can anyone tell me HOW voice acting specificly limits a character in a meaningful way? And is this limitation any different from the limitations give to us in other aspects of character creation, like class or race? All aspects of character creation have their limits but they don't stop the player from roleplaying.

[Gothfather]

Let me demonstrate.

"Your response is really a pleasure to read. You should post every day."

If my character is voiced, you have a VERY clear idea of my tone, inflection and concept. With a silent protagonist, I can read it a multitude of different ways. I can express my character in a multitude of different ways, even those outside the original intent of the writer's line, because of this freedom.

The NPC's response to this line may indicate how the writer intended the NPC to perceive it, but it does not mean my character could not have meant it in the way I intended it.

Of course, the biggest danger lies not in inflection or tone, but in paraphrasing, where we don't even know the real words until our character is saying them, possibly breaking character concepts because the player didn't know enough.

That's the cost. It may be zero cost to you if you don't seek to Roleplay in this fashion, but it can actually make the game unplayable for someone who does.

You are confusing  voice acting with writing.

 

The meaning behind the writen statements in DA:O were view by the world in ONE way, the way the writer indended. The writer assumed your character would make X choices and for those choice to have any effect upon the world the writer had to assume the motivation behind each dialogue choice was Y. What your character's "REAL" motivation for the choice is irrelevant, because the writer has no way of knowing what your motivations are. So your ability to read into any tone you wanted in the text does nothing to change how the world actually took each statement to mean. You were stil limited in your roleplay options based on exactly HOW the writer crafted the choices and how the world reacted. Nothing has changed except how the choices are delivered/acted out. The writer has to assume your motivations are something otherwise you can't write a story with choices. In the days of text based games it was the same, your motivations were never free to be whatever you wanted they were always confined by the limited options presented and the limited motivations for these options that the writers gave you.

 

 

 

Paraphrasing's issues are nothing new, I recall many a time viewing an option to mean X in a text game but the writers meant y. The complaints people are making about voice acting are not intrinsic to voice acting and voice acting alone, they are intrinsic to computer rpgs in general.

 

Now i will agree that the interface for the player to make dialogue choices took a dip, in that the number of misintuerpitations i made of what the writer was saying increased with the advent of voice acting. HOWEVER and this is huge, with each iteration of voice acted protaganist the interface has improved. In the early days of text I recall as a kid often running into the "thats not what i meant by that!" but as developers learned their craft this became rarer. So too has the user interface for voice acting improved its a newer feature/technology of games so it takes time to refine like all features. ME had lots and lots of "Thats not what I though i was going to say" moments. They got better and better so that by the time SWTOR came around they were very rare indeed.

[AzukiJin]

You are confusing  voice acting with writing.

 

The meaning behind the writen statements in DA:O were view by the world in ONE way, the way the writer indended. The writer assumed your character would make X choices and for those choice to have any effect upon the world the writer had to assume the motivation behind each dialogue choice was Y. What your character's "REAL" motivation for the choice is irrelevant, because the writer has no way of knowing what your motivations are. So your ability to read into any tone you wanted in the text does nothing to change how the world actually took each statement to mean. You were stil limited in your roleplay options based on exactly HOW the writer crafted the choices and how the world reacted. Nothing has changed except how the choices are delivered/acted out. The writer has to assume your motivations are something otherwise you can't write a story with choices. In the days of text based games it was the same, your motivations were never free to be whatever you wanted they were always confined by the limited options presented and the limited motivations for these options that the writers gave you.

 

 

 

Paraphrasing's issues are nothing new, I recall many a time viewing an option to mean X in a text game but the writers meant y. The complaints people are making about voice acting are not intrinsic to voice acting and voice acting alone, they are intrinsic to computer rpgs in general.

 

This is true, I remember, that almost EVERYTIME I side with Bhelen for King, I always pick the "Let's meet Bhelen, he seems nice" as the option, cause the first time I thought Bhelen was Harrowind, the second time, when I was more invested I picked it cause my character liked the hardass apporach and I forgot that the guy always react to it as "I'll take that WASN'T Sarcasm" and IT WASNT WHY DO YOU SOUND SO ANGRY AT ME Q_Q

[Sully13]

Meh i dot give a flying monkies are wether or not its a voiced protagonist. to bad the Dwarfs arn't Scottish and the Dalish arn't Welsh but eh what can you do but moan 'eh?' 

any way i just hope the acting is good.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yawn.

So someone how you are so hard done by that 4 voices means you only can play the game once because of the voice acting? Really? You can't stretch your imagination far enough to see that you could play the game 4 times without any repetition in the protaganist's voice?

I was replying to a comment about the earlier games, which offered only one voice per gender.

Moreover, even with 4 voices, we're limited to 4 broadly defined personalities. With the silent protagonist, we were barely limited at all.

[Fast Jimmy]

Does Wasteland 2 even show a full line based on the keywords? I haven't noticed.

If it doesn't, then it doesn't suffer at all. And if it does, it convinces me that the voice really is a bigger problem for me than the paraphrase is (a surprising revelation, if true).

 

It does, a very generic line is populated when you choose the option. The fact that you can easily miss it in the text, though, is probably the culprit. 

If you don't see it, its not infringing on your ability to roleplay.

[Fast Jimmy]

Err i viewed all my Hawkes and Shepards are someone I created who wasn't myself, they all had their own motives and desires. Yes some had lots of over lap with myself personally but some were so far from me that there was no overlap not even in gender. Yet i always felt that when i was playing I was that Shepard or that hawke. The Shepards or Hawkes were not me but i was them because I controlled their motivations and actions and I was teh architech of their personalities. Writing was the limitation of that experience not voice acting. Writers determine what my choices are, writers determine what my motivations are in making those choices. The voice acting doesn't do that.

 

The limitations of the computer RPG is that the writers make all the choice options for you. This is completely seperate from voice acting. Voice acting doesn't create choice it doesn't create motivation that is already created by the writer the voice actor simply gives voice to limitations that were already present in the game since the advent of text RPGs like Zork.

 

So I ask can anyone tell me HOW voice acting specificly limits a character in a meaningful way? And is this limitation any different from the limitations give to us in other aspects of character creation, like class or race? All aspects of character creation have their limits but they don't stop the player from roleplaying.

 

Again... go back to the example I gave:

 

"I find your responses really enjoyable. You should post here everyday."

 

Is that sincere? Sardonic? Hurtful? Playful? Said with a wry smile or delivered with a stone faced glower?

 

These are all things you can work with and imagine. With just one line. Cinematics (and, its twin cousin, voice protagonist) limits you to one of these options.

 

Also, the four voices are a bit of a joke to this conversation. Its not a the timbre or sound of the voice that causes probelms (in most cases), its the delivery of the line. The voice actor may convey exactly what the writer intended when they wrote the line, but that doesn't mean the words themselves couldn't be delivered in different ways if the player so desired. 

 

Couple that with a paraphrase where you never know what you are going to be saying and your character can, at any time, be broken by what you choose as the player versus what the game says the character really says. 

 

 

Not to mention ACTUAL costs. Baldur's Gate 2, voted the greatest game of all time by fellow game developers, could not be made today due to the cost, file size limitations and localization costs associated with a voiced actor. If one of the greatest games of all time can't be replicated with the system, then that is a huge cost. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

You are confusing voice acting with writing.

You are confusing reaction with expression.

The meaning behind the writen statements in DA:O were view by the world in ONE way, the way the writer indended. The writer assumed your character would make X choices and for those choice to have any effect upon the world the writer had to assume the motivation behind each dialogue choice was Y. What your character's "REAL" motivation for the choice is irrelevant, because the writer has no way of knowing what your motivations are. So your ability to read into any tone you wanted in the text does nothing to change how the world actually took each statement to mean. You were stil limited in your roleplay options based on exactly HOW the writer crafted the choices and how the world reacted. Nothing has changed except how the choices are delivered/acted out. The writer has to assume your motivations are something otherwise you can't write a story with choices. In the days of text based games it was the same, your motivations were never free to be whatever you wanted they were always confined by the limited options presented and the limited motivations for these options that the writers gave you.

What motivations the writer imagined are irrelevant becausethe player can't ever know what they are.

As such, the player is free to invent whatever motivation he wants, confident that the game cannot contradict him.

And those assumed motivations do matter, because they inform the PC's interpetation of the NOC's reactions (so even though the NPC reactions don't change, the PC's interpretation of them will), and that further informs the PC's future choices.

[Xilizhra]

Again... go back to the example I gave:

 

"I find your responses really enjoyable. You should post here everyday."

 

Is that sincere? Sardonic? Hurtful? Playful? Said with a wry smile or delivered with a stone faced glower?

 

These are all things you can work with and imagine. With just one line. Cinematics (and, its twin cousin, voice protagonist) limits you to one of these options.

 

Also, the four voices are a bit of a joke to this conversation. Its not a the timbre or sound of the voice that causes probelms (in most cases), its the delivery of the line. The voice actor may convey exactly what the writer intended when they wrote the line, but that doesn't mean the words themselves couldn't be delivered in different ways if the player so desired. 

 

Couple that with a paraphrase where you never know what you are going to be saying and your character can, at any time, be broken by what you choose as the player versus what the game says the character really says. 

 

 

Not to mention ACTUAL costs. Baldur's Gate 2, voted the greatest game of all time by fellow game developers, could not be made today due to the cost, file size limitations and localization costs associated with a voiced actor. If one of the greatest games of all time can't be replicated with the system, then that is a huge cost. 

I find the amount of wiggle room in how a line is delivered with a silent protagonist, given that the reaction of the NPC will still be set, to be absolutely miniscule compared to the greater immersion having a voiced protagonist adds for me. I frequently found it difficult to see the Hero of Ferelden as a person at all, instead of just a mobile camera.

[Eudaemonium]

Of course, the biggest danger lies not in inflection or tone, but in paraphrasing, where we don't even know the real words until our character is saying them, possibly breaking character concepts because the player didn't know enough.

 

I have realised further why these discussions never make any sense to me. It's basically because of this. I generally don't play from a character concept, the character concept emerges organically through the act of playing. Using Hawke as an example, I only know who Hawke actually was when the credits finally roll (perhaps not even then), and thus for me nothing Hawke actually says during the game—no matter no unexpected—can break character concept. Rather, they are insights into Hawke's personal psychology . If Hawke says or does something I don't expect, I see it as an unexpected facet of her or his character development, even if I unintentionally and unknowingly authored it.

[Fast Jimmy]

You are confusing  voice acting with writing.

 

The meaning behind the writen statements in DA:O were view by the world in ONE way, the way the writer indended. The writer assumed your character would make X choices and for those choice to have any effect upon the world the writer had to assume the motivation behind each dialogue choice was Y. What your character's "REAL" motivation for the choice is irrelevant, because the writer has no way of knowing what your motivations are. So your ability to read into any tone you wanted in the text does nothing to change how the world actually took each statement to mean. You were stil limited in your roleplay options based on exactly HOW the writer crafted the choices and how the world reacted. Nothing has changed except how the choices are delivered/acted out. The writer has to assume your motivations are something otherwise you can't write a story with choices. In the days of text based games it was the same, your motivations were never free to be whatever you wanted they were always confined by the limited options presented and the limited motivations for these options that the writers gave you

This is just flat out not accurate. Who dictates your experience for you? You can make a game of Monopoly a personalized story of corruption and betrayal in a corporate-dominant society if you want. Accepting what the game places directly in front of you isn't the only option. 

 

 

 

Paraphrasing's issues are nothing new, I recall many a time viewing an option to mean X in a text game but the writers meant y. The complaints people are making about voice acting are not intrinsic to voice acting and voice acting alone, they are intrinsic to computer rpgs in general.

 

 

Now i will agree that the interface for the player to make dialogue choices took a dip, in that the number of misintuerpitations i made of what the writer was saying increased with the advent of voice acting. HOWEVER and this is huge, with each iteration of voice acted protaganist the interface has improved. In the early days of text I recall as a kid often running into the "thats not what i meant by that!" but as developers learned their craft this became rarer. So too has the user interface for voice acting improved its a newer feature/technology of games so it takes time to refine like all features. ME had lots and lots of "Thats not what I though i was going to say" moments. They got better and better so that by the time SWTOR came around they were very rare indeed.

 

 

 

Again, we go back to the intention of the writer not being the sole point. Even in the above examples you give about mistakes and misinterpretations, you are interpreting the options and dialogue in a way different than what the writer intended. If you had such an instance and were told by the writer "that's not what I meant, so just ignore it or suck it up" you'd feel a little insulted, because the way you interpreted was valid for you. 

 

The same applies here, except for a silent protagonist. One can look at the line of a silent protagonist and imagine it being delivered in a myriad of ways, just like reading a book can give people different ideas of how things look or play out. This is not possible when the lines are being delivered to you. Only at that point is the player truly confined to the writing.

 

 

A game can be designed to allow for imagination through ambiguity. Many games have been, whether they intended to or not. When that ambiguity is removed, so to is the allowance for imagination, forcing the player to become a passive watcher of the story instead of the one crafting it. If you are really focused on finding a cost, that's about as succinct as I can make it.

 

[Fast Jimmy]

I find the amount of wiggle room in how a line is delivered with a silent protagonist, given that the reaction of the NPC will still be set, to be absolutely miniscule compared to the greater immersion having a voiced protagonist adds for me. I frequently found it difficult to see the Hero of Ferelden as a person at all, instead of just a mobile camera.

 

I respect that you feel that way. But I feel like many of the responses in DA:O were crafted in a way that left the door wide open for the NPC to have misunderstood. The example someone gave about the NPC saying "I'll ASSUME that wasn't sarcasm." It may have been. It may not have been. It may have been a middle ground. Either way, the NPC didn't overreact to the line where one could assume that the writer had 100% intention one way or the other (or, even if they did, the player can assume the guard was wrong, right or whatever else they want).

 

Ambiguity is the playground of the imagination in such cases. But I can respect that sometimes it may not be as entertaining.

[Fast Jimmy]

I have realised further why these discussions never make any sense to me. It's basically because of this. I generally don't play from a character concept, the character concept emerges organically through the act of playing. Using Hawke as an example, I only know who Hawke actually was when the credits finally roll (perhaps not even then), and thus for me nothing Hawke actually says during the game—no matter no unexpected—can break character concept. Rather, they are insights into Hawke's personal psychology . If Hawke says or does something I don't expect, I see it as an unexpected facet of her or his character development, even if I unintentionally and unknowingly authored it.

 

That's a totally valid way to play. In fact, I'd say its probably the way the majority of people who play games with voiced characters play.

 

But, unfortunately, it is very non-conducive to other styles of play. Which are made pretty much invalid with a voiced character in many instances.

 

 

Did you have the same feeling of needing to explore your Warden (if you played DA:O)? Were they a mystery?

[Xilizhra]

I respect that you feel that way. But I feel like many of the responses in DA:O were crafted in a way that left the door wide open for the NPC to have misunderstood. The example someone gave about the NPC saying "I'll ASSUME that wasn't sarcasm." It may have been. It may not have been. It may have been a middle ground. Either way, the NPC didn't overreact to the line where one could assume that the writer had 100% intention one way or the other (or, even if they did, the player can assume the guard was wrong, right or whatever else they want).

 

Ambiguity is the playground of the imagination in such cases. But I can respect that sometimes it may not be as entertaining.

That still doesn't, to me, have nearly enough material to accept rejecting voiced PCs. The cost is far too high. No RPG will ever have total freedom to design one's character and motivations, but in any case, I prefer crafting stories to merely crafting characters; if I give up some control to have a better story, I can accept that.

[Gothfather]

Again... go back to the example I gave:

 

"I find your responses really enjoyable. You should post here everyday."

 

Is that sincere? Sardonic? Hurtful? Playful? Said with a wry smile or delivered with a stone faced glower?

 

These are all things you can work with and imagine. With just one line. Cinematics (and, its twin cousin, voice protagonist) limits you to one of these options.

 

Also, the four voices are a bit of a joke to this conversation. Its not a the timbre or sound of the voice that causes probelms (in most cases), its the delivery of the line. The voice actor may convey exactly what the writer intended when they wrote the line, but that doesn't mean the words themselves couldn't be delivered in different ways if the player so desired. 

 

Couple that with a paraphrase where you never know what you are going to be saying and your character can, at any time, be broken by what you choose as the player versus what the game says the character really says. 

 

 

Not to mention ACTUAL costs. Baldur's Gate 2, voted the greatest game of all time by fellow game developers, could not be made today due to the cost, file size limitations and localization costs associated with a voiced actor. If one of the greatest games of all time can't be replicated with the system, then that is a huge cost. 

 

 

People ****** that the paraphrasing is causing their characters to say what the don't mean but I recall just as much bitching in games with just text when it wasn't clear what was meant by a given line. Most people I talked to don't go well i meant X but the NPC took it as Y so [shrug] thats just how things go. Nope people would get upset because they felt the game was ruining their Rp experience because it was putting words and meaning into their mouths and that limited them.

 

Ambiguity in RPG has always been a factor and it has allays been a bone of contention with computer RPGs, now you want to take what has always been something players have wanted as a whole to eliminate and make it into a virtue and advantage of the system? Sorry i don't buy that argument. I can't think of a single instance befoer voice acting when people complained about ambiguity that players jumped in and said no ambiguity is great because i can RP better. I saw plenty of arguemnts that ambiguity ruined RP but no where were people crying out for even more ambiguity in the text dialogue because that enhanced the Rp experience.

[Fast Jimmy]

That still doesn't, to me, have nearly enough material to accept rejecting voiced PCs. The cost is far too high. No RPG will ever have total freedom to design one's character and motivations, but in any case, I prefer crafting stories to merely crafting characters; if I give up some control to have a better story, I can accept that.

 

The further down the road of voiced protagonists Bioware goes, the less I find I enjoy the story, personally, but that's likely just my tastes. I like ME1 the best of the ME series and DA:O hands down over DA2. 

 

The best part about crafting a character and letting them loose in a story is that they can surprise you. I made a pro-Chantry fighter City Elf (who would gain the Templar specialty) and who I totally had the intention of taking the path of realization that Templars were oppressing Mages and the Chantry had abused his people. Yet through the course of the story, by acting through his persona, his doubts turned into renewed resolve in the faith of the Divine and the authority of its church. That's a pretty exciting journey, to be surprised by a character you create.

 

I'm never surprised by Hawke. Well, unless I'm genuinely surprised by the dialogue choice being made based on the paraphrase. I'm not surprised by Shephard, either. He's a space marine who is duty bound to fight for the galaxy's best interest - that's pretty set in stone. Paragon and Renegade are basically boil down to just whether he's a d!ck or not. Those don't seem like journeys to me. They seem like just another character on screen that I get to direct, not a character where I'm the actor. 

 

If that makes any sort of sense.

[Gothfather]

Besides Bioware is pretty much the leader in this type of Voice RP experience if you want a non voiced RP experience go to Bethesda.

 

This is not in the tone of don't like it get lost but rather, let those of us who like this RP experience have it.

 

Stop trying to take away my peach pie just because you don't like peaches. If you don't like peaches don't order this type of pie, its not like this is the only pie you can have. Just next door you can get an apple pie.

 

I get that people can prefer X over Y but stop the BS of trying to say that X is superior to Y for roleplaying because its not it just you don't like X and your subjective likes and dislikes are no reason to change a feature of a game especially when that feature is well liked. (The reverse is also true. My subjective likes and dislikes are no reason for bethesda to start adding voice acting either.)

[Eudaemonium]

That's a totally valid way to play. In fact, I'd say its probably the way the majority of people who play games with voiced characters play.

 

But, unfortunately, it is very non-conducive to other styles of play. Which are made pretty much invalid with a voiced character in many instances.

 

 

Did you have the same feeling of needing to explore your Warden (if you played DA:O)? Were they a mystery?

 

The Warden is a difficult character to talk about, but the short answer is no. I was probably technically immersed deeper in the Warden. They were more a character I was and less a character I was interested to know, like Hawke. I could imagine myself having a drink with Hawke in the Hanged Man. I could never imagine that with the Warden because the Warden was, to an extent, me. The issue is that I like to read stories, not really star in them. I often think this goes back to the whole classic JRPG vs classic WRPG/Tabletop conundrum. I think the related issue is that I don't really want a hero, what I really want is an ensemble cast—probably why I love DA2 for all its glaring, horrendous problems (or to put it another way: my primary issue with DA2 is that it was rushed, but I approve of most of its design decisions, including Hawke's apparent narrative meaninglessness).

 

One issue I have with the Warden is primarily that I get significant immersion breaking when attempts at headcanonisation aren't reflected in (or worse, are contradicted by) the game world. The aforementioned tonal misunderstanding issue regarding character reactions for example, but there are others. The fact if I tried to headcanon something none of the available options would be applicable to what I wanted to do. I actually completed DA:O four times with the same character—Female City Elf Rogue—making almost all the same decisions in the story, and it was only on the fourth playthrough that i actually felt able to RP, because by that time I'd learnt the game so thoroughly I knew how to twist a character concept around the narrative to maintain some semblance of consistency.

 

I have no idea if any of that made sense, because it is 1:21am and I am tired.

[Fast Jimmy]

People ****** that the paraphrasing is causing their characters to say what the don't mean but I recall just as much bitching in games with just text when it wasn't clear what was meant by a given line. Most people I talked to don't go well i meant X but the NPC took it as Y so [shrug] thats just how things go. Nope people would get upset because they felt the game was ruining their Rp experience because it was putting words and meaning into their mouths and that limited them.

 

Ambiguity in RPG has always been a factor and it has allays been a bone of contention with computer RPGs, now you want to take what has always been something players have wanted as a whole to eliminate and make it into a virtue and advantage of the system? Sorry i don't buy that argument. I can't think of a single instance befoer voice acting when people complained about ambiguity that players jumped in and said no ambiguity is great because i can RP better. I saw plenty of arguemnts that ambiguity ruined RP but no where were people crying out for even more ambiguity in the text dialogue because that enhanced the Rp experience.

So bad examples of silent protagonists mean we should have none? Poor use of ambiguity means it should be removed completely, other people's playstyles be darned?

 

I don't think I agree with that.

 

You could say "Bioware can get better with voiced protagonists" but I honestly don't see how they can introduce that level of "this line could mean anything" unless they recorded a dozen lines to say "Good morning." 

[Fast Jimmy]

Besides Bioware is pretty much the leader in this type of Voice RP experience if you want a non voiced RP experience go to Bethesda.

 

This is not in the tone of don't like it get lost but rather, let those of us who like this RP experience have it.

 

Stop trying to take away my peach pie just because you don't like peaches. If you don't like peaches don't order this type of pie, its not like this is the only pie you can have. Just next door you can get an apple pie.

 

I get that people can prefer X over Y but stop the BS of trying to say that X is superior to Y for roleplaying because its not it just you don't like X and you subjective likes and dislikes are no reason to change a feature of a game especially when that feature is well liked.

 

Bioware was the leader in silent protagonist RPGs as well. A vast majority of their top selling games of all time were silent protagonists. 

 

YOU took away MY peach pie, princess.

[General TSAR]

Unfortunately that's not gonna happen. It would be cool if there was a toggle, but that's too much resources and time for something that's going to be rarely used. 

[Fast Jimmy]

The Warden is a difficult character to talk about, but the short answer is no. I was probably technically immersed deeper in the Warden. They were more a character I was and less a character I was interested to know, like Hawke. I could imagine myself having a drink with Hawke in the Hanged Man. I could never imagine that with the Warden because the Warden was, to an extent, me. The issue is that I like to read stories, not really star in them. I often think this goes back to the whole classic JRPG vs classic WRPG/Tabletop conundrum. I think the related issue is that I don't really want a hero, what I really want is an ensemble cast—probably why I love DA2 for all its glaring, horrendous problems (or to put it another way: my primary issue with DA2 is that it was rushed, but I approve of most of its design decisions, including Hawke's apparent narrative meaninglessness).

 

One issue I have with the Warden is primarily that I get significant immersion breaking when attempts at headcanonisation aren't reflected in (or worse, are contradicted by) the game world. The aforementioned tonal misunderstanding issue regarding character reactions for example, but there are others. The fact if I tried to headcanon something none of the available options would be applicable to what I wanted to do. I actually completed DA:O four times with the same character—Female City Elf Rogue—making almost all the same decisions in the story, and it was only on the fourth playthrough that i actually felt able to RP, because by that time I'd learnt the game so thoroughly I knew how to twist a character concept around the narrative to maintain some semblance of consistency.

 

I have no idea if any of that made sense, because it is 1:21am and I am tired.

 

It does. And I can definitely sympathize with not feeling any of the options were appropriate. I guess my problem is that if I'm playing a voiced character, I don't even get that luxury, where even if I think I have the right line, I might wind up saying the wrong thing. I felt I had to do more "playthrough reconnaissance" in DA2 than I ever had to do in DA:O, but, as always, YMMV.

 

In games where I know the character is rather set, like say a JRPG, I find I can let go of this. Its only in games where the idea of player agency is portrayed but not delivered (in my opinion) that it really irks me. Even in a game like The Witcher, I can go along just fine (aside from the frustrating mechanics, which ultimately caused me to just leave the game behind), as I know I'm not roleplaying my character, but mererly guiding the choices of Geralt.

 

The problem with DA games is that we don't know enough about our characters to make such calls. Geralt is pretty cut and dry - he's an apathetic womanizer, searching for his past but more out of survival and material reasons than anything else. You couldn't make Hawke into Geralty - it would be impossible. You could, however, make a pretty decent stab at making your Warden like Geralt. Or even like Hawke. Or, heck, even like Shephard.

 

Which is why I think it is a system that offers more choices.