572 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

I've said that very thing in the past.

 

But why can't Alistair be different?  We don't need to understand or justify his reactions - we just have to avoid using our metaknowledge to invalidate them.

 

Two answers. The first is that I don't ascribe to the theory that RPG playthroughs are basically a variant of the multiverse theory, for a number of reasons. But this isn't the main source of my objection. Rather, I think it requires the player to usurp the role of the writer. 

 

Edit:

I realize the usurpation answer requires explanation. There is a difference between the act of interpretation a character - saying that Alistair may this or that - and actually defining a character for the purpose of allowing a possible interpretation of the PC - saying that Alistair must be this or that. 

 

For the kind of interaction you want to be possible, Alistair actually has to be a certain way to allow for his reaction to be the same to your PCs (supposedly) different action. It's not about interpreting Alistair to be different - it's that Alistair is different, which is what lets this happen. But to say how Alistair has to be is the role of the writer. 

And as I said, I think there's a fundamental distinction between writing and RPing, and once you control and define both characters to an interaction you are writing and not RPing. You're exercise control over who more than one character is, and to me that's the defining distinction. 

[KaiserShep]

The only real downside I ever consider with voiced protagonists is the penchant for the writers to include autodialogue that goes beyond the simple, neutral responses that would most likely occur in a regular conversation. Other than that, I didn't really think that I had more freedom with the Warden in conversation than Shepard in ME1.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I understand your position. Where I disagree with it is in the assumption that it's justifiable to choose between standards of evidence. You may disagree with me in this regard, but I view it the same as determining which forms of reasoning you (the general you) consider valid.

I wouldn't equate those two, but I also don't see why doing the same with forms of reasoning would be bad.

In respect of IRL social rules, I think there's an important distinction between our individual capacity to apply them and their existence and impact on the possible interpretations of a given social interaction. That is, whether or not you or I could ever understand those rules, the rules still apply. Our inability to provide an exhaustive and coherent description of physics does not mean that the rules of physics do not apply - it simply means that at least part of those rules are unknowable (at least as of right now).

Whether they apply is irrelevant to our interpretation of events, though, if we're unaware of them.  Under those circumstances, their existence or non-existence becomes immaterial.

I'm not sure I understand your first point. Part of my answer is the same as (in what is now) the post above. That is, there is a difference between the in-character interpretation of the NPC (from the POV of the PC) and the actual dynamic of the conversation from what we might say is an omniscient POV (which is not strictly speaking the player's POV, because we have the same limits as the PC in terms of our ability to assess behaviour). From the PC's POV, you know your own actions, but you don't know (not with certainty) the interpretation of them, and then you have to filter the NPC's reactions through your own subjective calculus. But from the omniscient POV, there is an actual answer to (1) the PC's action is and (2) the NPC's possible reaction to that action.

I'm trying to see if the NPC's reaction being fixed when the PC's action isn't forces any other conclusions.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Two answers. The first is that I don't ascribe to the theory that RPG playthroughs are basically a variant of the multiverse theory, for a number of reasons. But this isn't the main source of my objection. Rather, I think it requires the player to usurp the role of the writer.

My entire approach relies on not denying the multiverse theory.  I don't need to hold it; I just need not to deny it.

Edit:

I realize the usurpation answer requires explanation. There is a difference between the act of interpretation a character - saying that Alistair may this or that - and actually defining a character for the purpose of allowing a possible interpretation of the PC - saying that Alistair must be this or that. 

 

For the kind of interaction you want to be possible, Alistair actually has to be a certain way to allow for his reaction to be the same to your PCs (supposedly) different action. It's not about interpreting Alistair to be different - it's that Alistair is different, which is what lets this happen. But to say how Alistair has to be is the role of the writer.

I would argue that you're the one defining Alistair, by insisting that he is one thing and not the other.

 

I'm content to have Schrödinger's Alistair.

And as I said, I think there's a fundamental distinction between writing and RPing, and once you control and define both characters to an interaction you are writing and not RPing. You're exercise control over who more than one character is, and to me that's the defining distinction.

I would further draw a distinction between defining the NPC directly and defining him indirectly.  Using your description of my play, I'm not so much deciding facts about Alistair, but instead deciding facts about the PC which necessitate other facts about Alistair.

 

We're also only defining him at all from a perspective outside multiple playthroughs.  Only if you examine Alistair across multiple sets of mutually exclusive PC actions can you find redefinition.

 

I don't do that.

[Lux]

The lack of voice in Origins made it now complicated for the Warden to resurface. That in itself is tragic, IMO.

[Keroko]

Yeah, you can end up with a character that's it's impossible to actually play out (if you want to kill anybody who doesn't outright attack you, for instance, that probably won't work), but I do feel there is a vast amount more room for different interpretations than there is in the Mass Effect series or there was in Dragon Age II. In DA II, for example, if your character reaches a point where they just don't care at all about Kirkwall any more... what then? If they don't really care about either mages or templars, what then? There isn't anything that's actually forcing you there. That is of course leaving aside the voice, which will often have you saying things in a way you didn't intend, adding another level of difficulty -- and since there's only one, every male character and every female character will sound exactly the same. That's a problem for me. Voices, and everything one does with them when speaking, are very distinctive.

 

This has nothing to do with a voiced protagonist though, but the the limitations of how the story itself is written. If your Warden doesn't care about elves or werewolves he still has to make a choice and help either or both as well. Dwarves? Have to make a choice. Mages or templars? have to make a choice. The fact that your Warden isn't voiced changes nothing in this regard.

[phantomrachie]

I don't behave as I do in order to produce results in others.  I behave as I do because that's how I want to behave.

 

 

Of course, but your behaviour should get a reaction from others.

 

IRL being a jackass & being a nice person don't net you the same results from people, why should it in a game?

 

 

I don't care how the NPCs respond.  It's completely irrelevant to my character design.

 

 

but then your character design has no reflection in game, I hate it when my character design has no reflection in game.

 

I once had a DM who scripted NPC responses and didn't change them to react to what the characters were doing or saying, and it was sooo annoying. Quite honestly he was a poor DM in many respects. 

 

Personally I don't understand the point in creating a character that the world they are in is not going to respond to.

 

It would be like going through life, as grey blob who has no impact on the people around you.

[Eudaemonium]

but then your character design has no reflection in game, I hate it when my character design has no reflection in game.

 

This is actually one of the primary reason I prefer Hawke to the Warden. I only felt I could properly RP the Warden after several playthroughs and knew the various restrictions and dialogue choices well-enough to craft a character that would still be reflected in the game world.

[Il Divo]

Of course, but your behaviour should get a reaction from others.

 

IRL being a jackass & being a nice person don't net you the same results from people, why should it in a game?

 

 

 

but then your character design has no reflection in game, I hate it when my character design has no reflection in game.

 

I once had a DM who scripted NPC responses and didn't change them to react to what the characters were doing or saying, and it was sooo annoying. Quite honestly he was a poor DM in many respects. 

 

Personally I don't understand the point in creating a character that the world they are in is not going to respond to.

 

It would be like going through life, as grey blob who has no impact on the people around you.

 

Out of curiosity, how did it even happen that your players had time to realize the responses were scripted? Unlike games, most pen and paper (that I've experienced) doesn't really focus on replaying the same adventures/campaigns over and over. 

[phantomrachie]

Out of curiosity, how did it even happen that your players had time to realize the responses were scripted? Unlike games, most pen and paper (that I've experienced) doesn't really focus on replaying the same adventures/campaigns over and over. 

 

The NPCs responses often didn't react to things that had just happened. So in most pen & paper games, if a NPC witnesses a murder right in front of them the DM gives them some sort of reaction to it, in this one, we could walk up to an NPC with a weapon drawn covered in blood, and they'd be like 'hi how are you?' 

 

Once that happened a few times with a number of different NPCs, we asked the DM why the NPCs seemed to robotic and he told us that it was because he had a scripted response for most of them and he wasn't deviating from it, not matter what our characters said to the NPC or how they behaved towards them.

 

I never played a game with that DM again.

 

Reactivity is a big deal for me in roleplaying games.

[Ashevajak]

Like others have said, this ship has already sailed.  Bioware seem committed to having a voiced protagonist from now on.

 

I prefer a non-voiced protagonist, so long as the dialogue choices are nuanced and interesting enough to be able to support it (Obsidian does this fairly well, IMO).  But in lieu of that, I'm OK with well voice acted and somewhat constrained dialogue.  It's not my preference, but a decent voice actor can add a lot to a role and experience.

 

And, after all, it could be worse.  We could have both uninspired dialogue and a non-voiced protagonist (the most painful experiences in Skyrim: talking to people and watching cut-scenes)

[Hazegurl]

nope, I hope we never go back to a silent protag

[AlanC9]

also only defining him at all from a perspective outside multiple playthroughs.  Only if you examine Alistair across multiple sets of mutually exclusive PC actions can you find redefinition.
 
I don't do that.

Isn't that a kind of doublethink? You're not deliberately doing it, but you also know that your technique almost inevitably leads to it happening. "Almost" there because on a given playthrough it is possible that your interpretation of the PC's lines will 100% correspond to what the written NPC is actually responding to.

[Fast Jimmy]

This has nothing to do with a voiced protagonist though, but the the limitations of how the story itself is written. If your Warden doesn't care about elves or werewolves he still has to make a choice and help either or both as well. Dwarves? Have to make a choice. Mages or templars? have to make a choice. The fact that your Warden isn't voiced changes nothing in this regard.

 

I would say it is not inherently tied to a voiced protagonist, but it certainly is tied to a cinematic protagonist. 

 

For instance, in your character list (thank you for posting that, I didn't see it until this morning), you stated that one of your pro-Templar Hawke's expressed regret on the outside in terms of his dead sister, but silently was happy about it on the inside. Is this because that, no matter what, Hawke expresses sorrow for the deaths of his family? I'd say that is one instance (of which I'm sure others could be formed) where the cinematic demonstration of emotion, actions or attitude could easily interfere with a character you'd designed. What if your character had no intention of hiding or playing false the feeling that his apostate sister had died? Or who actually found, in the last moments, he did care for his sister, but wanted to remain stone-faced and emotional lest others think he was expressing sympathy? 

 

I get that the game's writing gave you lemons and you made lemonade - that's something you have to do with a silent protagonist as well. But with the silent/non-cinematic protagonist, you don't (ideally) say or do anything without the player's input or, the least, imagination. Voiced/cinematic protags do. And every time they do (see some of the complaints about ME3 auto-dialogue, for instance), it runs the risk of it breaking the character the player envisioned.

[herkles]

nope, I hope we never go back to a silent protag

 

Same I don't want go back to a silent protagnast in a bioware game.

[AlanC9]

I
For instance, in your character list (thank you for posting that, I didn't see it until this morning), you stated that one of your pro-Templar Hawke's expressed regret on the outside in terms of his dead sister, but silently was happy about it on the inside. Is this because that, no matter what, Hawke expresses sorrow for the deaths of his family? I'd say that is one instance (of which I'm sure others could be formed) where the cinematic demonstration of emotion, actions or attitude could easily interfere with a character you'd designed. What if your character had no intention of hiding or playing false the feeling that his apostate sister had died? Or who actually found, in the last moments, he did care for his sister, but wanted to remain stone-faced and emotional lest others think he was expressing sympathy? 

I don't see how the silent protagonist would change this. The silent PC would still have prewritten lines for that situation,

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't see how the silent protagonist would change this. The silent PC would still have prewritten lines for that situation,

 

Hawke doesn't even say anything, to my knowledge, in the scene I am referencing. He just kneels at his siblings side and looks sad, almost on the verge of tears.

 

A non-cinematic protag doesn't have that option. And a large part of moving to a voiced protag was so Bioware could use them more cinematically, showing them interacting with other characters more dynamically.

 

A noble goal, but one which robs the player of control.

[ForgottenWarrior]

Clop-clop, train has left the city long ago. You quite late with such requests.

[In Exile]

Hawke doesn't even say anything, to my knowledge, in the scene I am referencing. He just kneels at his siblings side and looks sad, almost on the verge of tears.

 

A non-cinematic protag doesn't have that option. And a large part of moving to a voiced protag was so Bioware could use them more cinematically, showing them interacting with other characters more dynamically.

 

A noble goal, but one which robs the player of control.

 

Cinematics are different from VO, and that's the point of Bioware's new reaction wheel: recognizing that your reaction to the scene is wholly separate from dialogue. 

[KaiserShep]

Hawke doesn't even say anything, to my knowledge, in the scene I am referencing. He just kneels at his siblings side and looks sad, almost on the verge of tears.

 

A non-cinematic protag doesn't have that option. And a large part of moving to a voiced protag was so Bioware could use them more cinematically, showing them interacting with other characters more dynamically.

 

A noble goal, but one which robs the player of control.

 

This example doesn't seem the least bit different to me than the Warden's facial expressions in the human noble prologue, especially the look of shock and dismay when the two come across a wounded Bryce Cousland. Beyond simply giving the player options for reactions, which seems to be the case for Inquisition, we'd basically have to go back to something like the Lone Wanderer in Fallout 3 or something. I enjoy the game, but I can't say that I'd like to go back to having that level of plank-ness back.

 

I'd very much prefer to see how far the current system can be refined before simply dialing it back to the old school method.

[In Exile]

This example doesn't seem the least bit different to me than the Warden's facial expressions in the human noble prologue, especially the look of shock and dismay when the two come across a wounded Bryce Cousland. Beyond simply giving the player options for reactions, which seems to be the case for Inquisition, we'd basically have to go back to something like the Lone Wanderer in Fallout 3 or something. I enjoy the game, but I can't say that I'd like to go back to having that level of plank-ness back.

 

I'd very much prefer to see how far the current system can be refined before simply dialing it back to the old school method.

 

Or the look of concern when Wynne drops like a log in her questline. 

[Doominike]

We need something for that ya, so we don't have stoic characters doing derp expressions of shock or Quizzys looking sad when someone they don't about dies

[Remmirath]

Allowing us to choose reactions in cutscenes is great. That, with the silent PC, would be very good -- but it still doesn't let you choose the way you're reacting in each individual line, and it certainly has no effect on how appropriate the sound and mannerisms of the voice actor is for the character, so it doesn't address any of the issues with the voice specifically.

This has nothing to do with a voiced protagonist though, but the the limitations of how the story itself is written. If your Warden doesn't care about elves or werewolves he still has to make a choice and help either or both as well. Dwarves? Have to make a choice. Mages or templars? have to make a choice. The fact that your Warden isn't voiced changes nothing in this regard.

That's true, it has fairly little to do with the voice. I was simply pointing out there that there is a very wide range of available character interpretations available in DA:O. That much would be true regardless of the voice.

I do feel that the voice has some impact, though, in that some lines you pick will be voiced differently than how you may have imagined them. The voice acting makes the intent behind the line clear through subtext -- that's part of acting -- and in so doing in removes the player's ability to choose a different intent their character might've had. You can take just about any line and come up with a very widely different number of ways to say it, which will actually mean very different things. All of those are theoretically available if you have no voice acting for the line, but if you have voice acting, the voice actor must choose one interpretation of the line and go with it.

You can choose whatever you want with regards to story whether or not the character is voiced, but when it comes down to dialogue, the available choices shrink. If you have unvoiced options, then you're free to decide how your character is interacting with the dwarves, mages, or templars to a much greater extent than you can if the dialogue is voiced.

Like others have said, this ship has already sailed. Bioware seem committed to having a voiced protagonist from now on.

It does indeed seem so. However, I think it's entirely reasonable to continue to express that we would like to have a choice. That wouldn't remove the voiced PC experience for those who want it, and it would greatly increase the enjoyment of the game for many of us. If production cost is a factor to why they're not doing it, I for one would be perhaps no happy but certainly willing to pay a noticable amount more if there was a non-voiced option.

I don't see how having a choice between a voiced/unvoiced PC is any worse from a game design perspective than having a choice between tactical mode and over-the-shoulder mode in combat is, and we're already getting that choice in DA:I.

[Gothfather]

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. 

So the definition of role playing is Role playing?

 

Every heard of not using a word to defind itself?

 

The defenition is smart is smart.

 

Err but what is smart?

 

Its smart.

 

Yes okay we have established that but what does start mean?

 

Smart means smart.

 

 

Why would you use that as an argument? If you can't defend a position of what Role playing is other than to say role playing is role playing than you can't defend your argument.

 

And to be clear if you are role playing trapped in a well you are REACTING to the situation of being in a well.

[Gothfather]

/snip


It does indeed seem so. However, I think it's entirely reasonable to continue to express that we would like to have a choice. That wouldn't remove the voiced PC experience for those who want it, and it would greatly increase the enjoyment of the game for many of us. If production cost is a factor to why they're not doing it, I for one would be perhaps no happy but certainly willing to pay a noticable amount more if there was a non-voiced option.

I don't see how having a choice between a voiced/unvoiced PC is any worse from a game design perspective than having a choice between tactical mode and over-the-shoulder mode in combat is, and we're already getting that choice in DA:I.

 

Its not just about what you want or even what i want in this situation. Bioware is making a game and games are art just like movies, books and TV are art. Part of the process of art is what the ARTIST wants to create. Bioware WANTS to create these type of games. If the artist isn't intrested in doing a piece of art to your liking you offering or being willing to pay for the peice isn't enough. The artist has to want to create the piece. And when your want/desire greatly changes how the art is percieved and that direcly runs counter to how the artist wants the art to be precieved your offer is meaningless.

 

George Lucus likes Jar jar binks nothing you can say or do will ever convience him to remove him. Its his work of art and he wants it in, Bioware wants voiced protaganists as this is the type of story telling they WANT in their games. no amount of complaint or offers of payment will get them to change their artistic vision in this case.