A voiceless protagonist may allow for more roleplaying, I dunno, I certainly don't feel that way, but I love seeing my characters interact with the world in a real way. I like seeing them speak, talk to others, emote. And I love this little gem (though FemHawke did it better):
I just saw this again during a playthrough and felt like sharing is all. Stuff like this wouldn't be possible with a voiceless protagonist.
Regardless, the fact that Bioware founders were saying that right after DA:O came out, but then three months later were talking about how DA:O didn't engage players because of a lack of voiced main character when promoting DA2 seemed schizophrenic in nature.
It's possible that the company itself didn't have a unified feeling on the matter. The writers have often taken the position that they weren't really trying to allow for multiple interpretations of the PC's lines in the first place, haven't they?
Pretty much, which is why the companions and other NPCs react in specific ways to the lines—they are reacting to the writer's intended reading of the line. The fact that the player could read multiple tones into the same sequence of words was considered to be an unintended flaw in the system rather than a strength.
My problem with the silent protagonist is that all it's supposed benefits are basically an illusion. The dialogue is mostly structured the same way, the NPC's react basically the same. Sure, you can imagine a bunch of tones for it, and project all kinds of motives on your character, but that's all just in your own head. The NPC's will react the way the writer intended for your line to be, no matter what your opinion of it is.
Now, I'm not really bashing all illusions of choice, as that's kind of what Bioware is founded on, right? But a voiced protagonist has a lot of real, concrete benefits, and I don't think players feeling like they have more choice is enough to outweigh it.
Pretty much, which is why the companions and other NPCs react in specific ways to the lines—they are reacting to the writer's intended reading of the line. The fact that the player could read multiple tones into the same sequence of words was considered to be an unintended flaw in the system rather than a strength.
You compeletely miss the point.My problem with the silent protagonist is that all it's supposed benefits are basically an illusion. The dialogue is mostly structured the same way, the NPC's react basically the same. Sure, you can imagine a bunch of tones for it, and project all kinds of motives on your character, but that's all just in your own head. The NPC's will react the way the writer intended for your line to be, no matter what your opinion of it is.
Now, I'm not really bashing all illusions of choice, as that's kind of what Bioware is founded on, right? But a voiced protagonist has a lot of real, concrete benefits, and I don't think players feeling like they have more choice is enough to outweigh it.
If you look at the progression of their RPGs it is moving in a very deliberate direction.
Buldar's gate - showed story telling RPgs still have a market
kotor - Started with changing camera angles and voiced dialogue (NPC) very different from BG.
ME - Takes it to the next step and adds voice to the PC.
There's truth to this. Regardless of our stance on older Bioware games (KotOR and Jade Empire were my two favorites), looking at their progress, I always had the impression that they wanted to focus on cinematics and interactive narrative, above all else. Some feel it was less intrusive the farther back we look, but even on Bioware's part, it came off as what they were working towards down the line.
Yes, they were so wrong that the DA sequel that included a voiced character sold half as much as the original game without one. Or the space RPG with a voiced character which didn't sell as much as DA:O until it's third game. Meanwhile the highest selling RPG of all time comes out afterwards to the tune of 20 million copies with a silent main character.
They really paid attention to the right lessons to get more players, that's for sure.
I'm sorry, but this argument is beneath you. It would be one thing if this was coming from someone who was comically ignorant of even basic finance, but you're not ignorant. The only sources we have available show that, put for the lack of PS3 on release for ME1, DA:O was outsold by every ME game in existence.
Look at the absolutely anemic sales of DA:A.
DA:O's sold around 4.54 million, but that includes PS3. It only sold 2.48 on the 360 and 0.49 on PC, not counting digital downloads. ME1 sold 3.5 million, but that's made up of 2.85 on 360 and 0.65 on PC, not including digital downloads. ME1 outsold DA:O.
ME2's outsold DA:O at 4.65, and ME3 at 5.27 destroyed it.
Unless you have better sources and can link to them, I'd suggest you stop just making stuff up.
I would challenges anyone in this thread to go back and play DA:O with a unique character concept. To play someone who isn't just a mirror of you or some other generic hero to save the day, but has motives, emotions and feelings that are more complex. It's a great (though far from perfect) vessel to do so.
The fact that you have an elaborate mental fantasy about how you can choose the same 3 actions using the same 3 lines, and getting the same responses from NPCs in respect of the same identical consequences does not make for a rich journey unless you enjoy the act of coming up with the elaborate mental fantasy.
If RPGs are about reactivity, not elaborate mental fantasies, then DA:O offers nothing substantially different from ME, and both are inferior to TW2.
The fact that you have an elaborate mental fantasy about how you can choose the same 3 actions using the same 3 lines, and getting the same responses from NPCs in respect of the same identical consequences does not make for a rich journey unless you enjoy the act of coming up with the elaborate mental fantasy.
If RPGs are about reactivity, not elaborate mental fantasies, then DA:O offers nothing substantially different from ME, and both are inferior to TW2.
I'll agree to this, barring the last Witcher jab. That's like saying Skyrim is the perfect RPG, because you can play absolutely whoever you want, with no restrictions. Sure, you can play any kind of character, but that's only because you are such a blank slate and there is no reactivity in the world. If you're willing to play through the game imagining that people actually care that you're an Argonian and pretending interactions between you and other characters actually take place, mentally filling in all the blanks Bethesda left behind, than yeah, you'll have a great time. But you can't expect other people to be okay with that.
Mute the volume. Problem solved.
You can't tell someone to stop asking to take away your desired gameplay, then turn around and tell them to suck it up when the shoe is on the other foot. That's not how intelligent discourse works.
My comment was only to show how silly you were being - as if my comments now could affect a decision of Bioware actually removing the voiced dialogue, anymore than your comments (in your vast 18 post history) could have changed Bioware's mind to move to the voiced protag in the first place.
Bethesda offers a non-voiced protagonist, true. Then again, so does Minesweeper. Neither have anything resembling options, dialogue or a setting that the player can interact with. And, while I play TES and Fallout games and enjoy them, they aren't exactly games that facilitate (or even really allow) any roleplaying (minus New Vegas, but that's not Bethesda). I could just as easily say "there's Black Ops across the street, those characters are voiced, leave us Bioware fans and our tastes alone." Its dismissive.
Bioware did change its vision to attract more fans. To date, it has not been successful for the DA franchise, if you want to base success off of game sales and overall review scores (although that will certainly change here when DA:I is released, I have no doubt about that). That is Bioware's prerogative. It doesn't mean people can't talk about what they liked about the old design, why the new design isn't conducive to how they play and engage in a discussion about it. "Go away, Bioware is doing what I want, your way of playing a game is dumb" is not discussion.
Stop playing the fool.
I told you to suck it up because you claimed someone took away your experience NO ONE HAS. You know damn well you haven't lost the non voice protagonist experience. I have referenced a company that gives a great RP experience you want MULTIPLE times. So stop being deliberatly obtuse.
You however want to take the only company that is doing the voice protaganist RPG experience and get then to drop this style of game. Why? Its not because you can't get the experience you want, go to bethesda. So it smacks of being selfish, greedy and so self important that what you want is the only thing that matters. So because you want non voice rpg experience you want to take away the voice rpg experience from people who like it.
It is intellectually consistant for me to tell you to suck it up princess when you play someone stoled you RPG experience card. No one stole it, go look for the experience you want from a company that already does what you want. It would be intellectually inconsistant if after telling you to suck it up I promptly went to bethesda told them to add voice protaganists because it promotes RPG. And someone said don't take away our experience go to Bioware if you want that and I said Bethesda is robbing me of the RPG experience because they aren't giving me what I want. I'm not doing that. I am saying there is room for both types of experience in the market place, If you don't like this experience fine just stop trying to take it away from peopel who like it.
If you can't roleplay in The elder scrolls enviroment than the problem is within yourself. You are given lots of dialogue options lots of ways to approach a problem and frankly there are so many paths you can take in how you absorb content, I suspect you are lying. Or your ability to role play walks a VERY VERY narrow path. Don't give me too much freedom so I have to use my imagination too much, but remove voice because that inpedes my ability to use my imagination. Really? You are going to argue how great non voiced protaganists are because it allows you to craft the story using your imagination but you can't use those skills in Skyrim or fallout 3? You really expect us to beleive you are being truthful here? The motivation as to why you are lying is clear, You want bioware to make the game you want with no thought as to the impact that has on other people. This smacks as the same attitude people have about bioware sucks because bioware didn't give me the exact [insert subjective ideal] romance. They have no regard to how their demands may impact peopel who actually like the romances as they are now and they don't care. They want what they want and f@#$% everyone else, same as you.
LoL yeah the thing that killed DA2 was the voice acting. Lets just ignore all the other changes that people complained about in far higher volume and maybe the readers of this thread wont notice.
DA2 was an inferior game, and that is why it failed to out sell DA:O.
it was smaller in enviorment size,
it used the same enviorments over and over again.
The textures of the enviorment were sub par.
They removed the tactical side of combat for a instant gratification form of combat (which to be honest is more a subjective thing, Some people loved it.)
They removed the ability to talk to your companions within the party.
They limited customization of companions,
They limited your options with in the classes no more dual wield warriors
This game would have been far inferior to DA:O if it had no protaganist voice acting. The fact that you want to attribute DA2's poor sales on voice acting shows you don't actually want to be intelectually honest on the topic. You want to twist my words and twist the facts so you can come across as this poor soul just looking for an RPG experience you want. But its all a fascade you really want to change things simply because you don't like a system and you don't care if the system is beloved, you don't care that its a system that Bioware has stated, in the past (one of the Swtor develoment diaries as I recall. The voice of TOR i think it was called.), that this is the type of experience THEY want to deliver in games. You don't care how it impacts anyone else all that matters is you.
RPGs aren't about reactivity. They are about role playing.The fact that you have an elaborate mental fantasy about how you can choose the same 3 actions using the same 3 lines, and getting the same responses from NPCs in respect of the same identical consequences does not make for a rich journey unless you enjoy the act of coming up with the elaborate mental fantasy.
If RPGs are about reactivity, not elaborate mental fantasies, then DA:O offers nothing substantially different from ME, and both are inferior to TW2.
There's a quote:Mute the volume. Problem solved.
The amount of hypocrisy in your statements is ridiculous.Stop playing the fool.
I told you to suck it up because you claimed some took away your experience NO ONE HAS. You know damn well you haven't lost the non voice protagonist experience. I have referenced a company that gives a great RP experience you want MULTIPLE times. So stop being deliberatly obtuse.
You however want to take the only company that is doing the voice protaganist RPG experience and get then to drop this style of game. Why? Its not because you can't get the experience you want, go to bethesda. So it smacks of being selfish, greedy and so self important that what you want is the only thing that matters. So because you want non voice rpg experience you want to take away the voice rpg experience from people who like it.
It is intellectually consistant for me to tell you to suck it up princess when you play someone stoled you RPG experience. No one stole it, go look for the experience you want from a company that already does what you want. It would be intellectually inconsistant if after telling you to suck it up I promptly went to bethesda told them to add voice protaganists because it promotes RPG. And someone said don't take away our experience go to Bioware if you want that and I said Bethesda is robbing me of the RPG experience because they aren't giving me what I want. I'm not doing that. I am saying there is room for both types of experience in the market place, If yoyu don't like this experience fine just stop trying to take it away from peopel who like it.
If you can't roleplay in The elder scrolls enviroment than the problem is with yourself. You are give as lots of dialogue options lots of ways to approach a problem and frankly there are so many paths you can take in how you absorb content, I suspect you are lying. Or your ability to role play walks a VERY VERY narrow path. Don't give me too much freedom so I have to use my imagination too much, but remove voice because that inpedes my ability to use my imagination. Really? You are going to argue how great non voiced protaganists are because it allows you to craft the story using your imagination but you can't use those skills in Skyrim or fallout 3? You really expect use to beleive you are being truthful here? The motivation as to why you are lying is clear, You want bioware to make the game you want with no thought as to the impact that has on other people. This smacks as the same attitude people have about bioware sucks because bioware didn't give me the exact [insert subjective ideal] romance. They have no regard to how their demands may impact peopel who actually like the romances as they are now and they don't care. They want what they want and f@#$% everyone else, same as you.
LoL yeah the thing that killed DA2 was the voice acting. Lets just ignore all the other changes that people complained about in far higher volume and maybe the readers of this thread wont notice.
DA2 was an inferior game, and that is why it failed to out sell DA:O.
it was smaller in enviorment size,
it used the same enviorments over and over again.
The textures of the enviorment were sub par.
They removed the tactical side of combat for a instant gratification form of combat (which to be honest is more a subjective thing, Some people loved it.)
They removed the ability to talk to your companions within the party.
They limited customization of companions,
They limited your options with in the classes no more dual wield warriors
This game would have been far inferior to DA:O if it had no protaganist voice acting. The fact that you want to attribute DA2's poor sales on voice acting shows you don't actually want to be intelectually honest on the topic. You want to twist my words and twist the facts so you can come across as this poor soul just looking for an RPG experience you want. But its all a fascade you really want to change things simply because you don't like a system and you don't care if the system is beloved, you don't care that its a system that Bioware has stated, in the past (one of the Swtor develoment diaries as I recall. The voice of TOR i think it was called.), that this is the type of experience THEY want to deliver in games. You don't care how it impacts anyone else all that matters is you.
The amount of hypocrisy in your statements is ridiculous.
"If you can't roleplay in The elder scrolls enviroment than the problem is with yourself."
Okay... "If you can't roleplay in a silent protagonist enviroment than the problem is with yourself."
And I just invalidated your entire post.
nope sorry you created a false argument to deflect my entire post you invalidated nothing and you know that.
I never made the claim people can't Role play with a Silent protaganist nor did I claim I couldn't . You are making the claim that a voiced protaganist hinders role playing. You have failed to show how this is true, I have never had a problem making very differnt shepards or hawkes in personality and Rp their actions based on what i thought this iteration of my character would do, very different from what i would do many times. You are cliaming features in two games now cause you RP problems two games that are known for their RP experiences. I sense a pattern. If you are finding it so hard to RP in two very different RPGs known for their RP experience then it seems to me the fault lies within yourself as YOU are the only common denominator. I have no problem Rp with both features, plenty of people can do it, why can't you?
You claim you can't role play with a voice protaganist and you can't roleplay with a silent protaganist in TES games, it seems the only way you can role play is if bioware makes a game in the manner you want. The smacks of you lying to try and strengthen a very weak argument by inventing a problem that doesn't actually exist or exist only in a very very small portion of the public. Voice acting is a beloved feature, you can get an silent RPG experience with Divinity: original sin, there is a newish shadowrun game that was crowd funed. You have plenty of options out there. I can think of only two companies that do the RPG experience with a voice protaganist that is Bioware and CD Projekt RED. With CD Projekt RED the witcher series doesn't really allow you a classic RPG experience becaue you are really a director in a story controlling the actions of establish character, not a character of your own making.
With all the choice out there for you Why do you feel it is so important to take away our only option of a voiced protagonist?
RPGs aren't about reactivity. They are about role playing.
In the Doctors interview I referenced earlier, they were quoted as saying "putting the letter J after RPG doesn't make it an RPG," specifically talking about an increased focus on cinematics and lack of player agency in character development in that genre.
This, of course, falls into the discussion of the defintion of an RPG. Something that has become so useless that one would, by the same lack of defintion, have a gasoline powered alarm clock be labeled energy efficient.
And "role playing" is about reactivity. We can go in circles forever. It's certainly not some metaphysically absolute concept that can only have one meaning.
You happen to think it's about supporting elaborate mental fantasies. I happen to think it's about different, specific and evocative reactions to varied inputs. One isn't better than the other, but they are different things, and we won't see eye to eye on it.
But riddle me this: why do you object to the absence of reactivty via, for example, the save import if you think RPGs aren't about reactivity? Why do you care about consequences to choice at all? Why do you care if there are choices?
And "role playing" is about reactivity. We can go in circles forever. It's certainly not some metaphysically absolute concept that can only have one meaning.
You happen to think it's about supporting elaborate mental fantasies. I happen to think it's about different, specific and evocative reactions to varied inputs. One isn't better than the other, but they are different things, and we won't see eye to eye on it.
But riddle me this: why do you object to the absence of reactivty via, for example, the save import if you think RPGs aren't about reactivity? Why do you care about consequences to choice at all? Why do you care if there are choices?
I don't object to the absence of reactivity. At all. It's an amazing tool in telling a great story by empowering the person experiencing it, elevating them above a mere passive listener into a role where they guide the development of the story.
But it isn't role playing. Any more than reading a choose-your-own-adventure book is roleplaying.
But it isn't role playing. Any more than reading a choose-your-own-adventure book is roleplaying.
It's the essence of RP. It's what sets it apart from day dreaming.
Look at every other vehicle for RPing - P&P games or LARPs. In all of these, your character is one person, controlling one side of the conversation, with the roleplaying come out of the interaction between you and other people (including the DM, who is the one person who doesn't really RP in the same way when he or she controls multiple characters in a conversation as DM).
The difference between writing and RPing is that you don't control (a) the scenario and (
the other side of the conversation, making the reaction to the other characters essential.
It's the essence of RP. It's what sets it apart from day dreaming.
Look at every other vehicle for RPing - P&P games or LARPs. In all of these, your character is one person, controlling one side of the conversation, with the roleplaying come out of the interaction between you and other people (including the DM, who is the one person who doesn't really RP in the same way when he or she controls multiple characters in a conversation as DM).
The difference between writing and RPing is that you don't control (a) the scenario and (
no don't you see its not role playing! If it is Role playing then I have to admit my entire argument against a voiced protaganist is flawed. i can't be wrong because its what i want and what i want is always right.
It pretty clear that fastjimmy isn't a person persuaded by logic or facts. He doesn't like voice protaganists ergo its bad period.
It's the essence of RP. It's what sets it apart from day dreaming.
Look at every other vehicle for RPing - P&P games or LARPs. In all of these, your character is one person, controlling one side of the conversation, with the roleplaying come out of the interaction between you and other people (including the DM, who is the one person who doesn't really RP in the same way when he or she controls multiple characters in a conversation as DM).
The difference between writing and RPing is that you don't control (a) the scenario and (
There's nothing preventing you from controlling multiple characters in a RP situation. It can be a little silly, but no more silly than a one-man play that does the same thing.
But regardless, reactivity isn't the definition of role playing. Role playing is. I could role play someone caught in a well by myself. Just like I could role play being buried alive. Some great acting scenes have done just that.
I may be being obtuse, but you are taking one aspect of narrative, the fact that characters usually have to interact with others or the world, and saying that's role playing. Its not - its part of narrative. Role playing is actively playing the character in that narrative.
I'll agree to this, barring the last Witcher jab. That's like saying Skyrim is the perfect RPG, because you can play absolutely whoever you want, with no restrictions. Sure, you can play any kind of character, but that's only because you are such a blank slate and there is no reactivity in the world. If you're willing to play through the game imagining that people actually care that you're an Argonian and pretending interactions between you and other characters actually take place, mentally filling in all the blanks Bethesda left behind, than yeah, you'll have a great time. But you can't expect other people to be okay with that.
I may be being obtuse, but you are taking one aspect of narrative, the fact that characters usually have to interact with others or the world, and saying that's role playing. Its not - its part of narrative. Role playing is actively playing the character in that narrative.
I'm just going to say that when playing Hawke it never felt like I was Hawke.
My wardens always felt like mine; Hawke felt like a puppet I was pushing around the stage.
I don't know if that's a fault of the voice acting or DA2's story, because Shepard always felt like mine.
We probably shouldn't get hung up on the definition of the word "role-playing." Even if you win that point, it doesn't matter; In Exile can just move that such activity is pointless in a CRPG even if the genre has "RP" in the description. It's not like "role-playing" in your sense has much to do with the CRPG genre historically.
Retour en haut