Arthur Schopenhauer famously wrote, "A man can do as he will, but not will as he will."Now you're just being silly. Not that other people haven't argued about this with you before and no conclusion came of it, so i'll just abstain as neither of us will reach an agreement.
Really? I think it's been a pretty standard approach in BW games since their KoTOR days, where you'd have the light side choices on top and the dark side on the bottom. It was then eventually officially formalized in their dialogue wheel patent application for ME.I never noticed this when playing the silent protagonist games
It has. I'm glad I didn't know.Really? I think it's been a pretty standard approach in BW games since their KoTOR days, where you'd have the light side choices on top and the dark side on the bottom. It was then eventually officially formalized in their dialogue wheel patent application for ME.
Sure you can. The writer's intent didn't make it into the game - only the words did.
Part of the writer's intent is reflected in the way the NPC responds.
Also, this isn't like the real world. The writers know what the PC's line is and can craft their NPC's response accordingly. That doesn't happen in real life, which is what leads to confusion between the intent of the speaker ("Sorry, I didn't mean it that way!"), and the reaction of the listener ("But that's how it sounded.")
Again, I disagree; the means to tell the intent were the placement and presence of other lines. The nice lines were generally on top, the aggressive ones on the bottom, investigations and/or jokes in the middle. To take a look a the specific example you bring up:
1. What?! You don't think you might have told me this before?
2. So... you're not just a bastard, but a royal bastard? Approves (+1)
3. Doesn't that make you heir to the throne?
4. Why did you wait to tell me this?
#3 is obv. investigation/neutral line. #1 is on top, #4 is on the bottom so that makes them 'nice' and 'in your face', respectively. That leaves #2 in the middle as 'not aggressive' because that's covered by #4, meaning #2 is intended as a joke. (although whether Alistair would see the humour in it is up to him, in this case he apparently did)
Hmmm .... no .... I like it with voices. The Bioware-Games have become quite cinematic in-between battles, and currently playing DAO again, ot really feels weak for the protagonist to be the only mute around...
I would have LOVED a good voice-actor to tell Arl Howe what he is and how I will kill him slowly! I wanted my Warden to confess her eternal love to Alistair, hear the sadness and despair when she asks Alistair to accept Morrigan's weird pact...the confrontation at the Landsmeet...
Yes, all of that should be "imagined" by us, because fantasy is the best in your own head and all that. And don't get me wrong, it's a legit concern of the people preferring silent protagonists, and I understand what they like about it. ...
I say that is not the case with modern RPG games anymore. I have no problems in games like "Pillars of Eternity" or "Wasteland 2", where its mostly a "read" anyway. But when my protagonist is the only one unable to speak it's just weird and actually takes me out more of the immersion than the opposite...
And indeed I want Jennifer Hale to do the voicework for all my female Bioware heroes from now-on. Thank you very much, keep posting *bows and leaves*
This would require some useful mechanism for predicting the NPC reaction. And I don't think we should have one.Part of the writer's intent is reflected in the way the NPC responds.
The writer's intent is only in the game if you decide it is.Also, this isn't like the real world. The writers know what the PC's line is and can craft their NPC's response accordingly.
So let's assume it doesn't happen in the game either. That neatly solves the problem.That doesn't happen in real life, which is what leads to confusion between the intent of the speaker ("Sorry, I didn't mean it that way!"), and the reaction of the listener ("But that's how it sounded.")
It started in Mass Effect.And now every BW game they voicing the hero.
But in old games like DAO and others we had only text and it was great.
I would like to place a request to return to that.Please.
Uhhhhh what? No thanks!
Guest_Amanda Palmer_*
The voiced PC isn't going anywhere, but I agree with you: I hate voiced protagonists. I was raised on Zelda. Hearing the voice in my own head is far more immersive and it truly makes the hero feel like ME.
The voiced protag is forcing me to be someone else. That's fine if it's a preset character, but not when it's a customized character. You have the option to self-insert with customized heroes. But when the protag is voiced it feels like my hero is half-possessed.
That being said, non-voiced protags are antiquated - a thing of the past - so you will likely never see that happen again in a BioWare game.
Guess I am with the minority here with whom in favour of a slient protagonist. I would rather Bioware had spent the money used to pay for a voice actor on ironing out bugs instead; but oh well.
This would require some useful mechanism for predicting the NPC reaction. And I don't think we should have one.
Alistair's reaction tells us how Alistair took it. It tells us nothing about how the line was delivered.I don't understand this statement. By using the previous Alistair example, "So... you're not just a bastard, but a royal bastard?" to which he responds with amusement, it is clear to me that the writers' intent was that the statement be taken in a humorous, rather than insulting, way.
I'm not the writers. In-game, I see only my side. I can't read the NPC's mind, just as I can't read yours.Also, I referenced real life because earlier you said that the ambiguity was "Just like talking to a real person." But it's NOT like talking to a real person because you don't know both sides, which the writers do.
Voice makes them more human, especially if everyone else in the game has a voice. I don't just want to hear the protagonist grunt.
I have liked having protagonists with selectable voiced dialogue ever since Wing Commander 3.
It started in Mass Effect.And now every BW game they voicing the hero.
But in old games like DAO and others we had only text and it was great.
I would like to place a request to return to that.Please.
I like it too however it depends of the theme,setting,and style of the videogame, like retro games, and to be honest i don't think no voice protag will not be good for many of bioware's rpg series. After all they are pushing themselves in the world of role playing with alot of details to enhance rpgs.
I'd be actually inclined to read it like this myself, too, at first take. Which makes the point about order of lines clarifying potential confusion when it comes to the intent/tone all the stronger, imo. As knowing this I can see how #1 could be intended as more diplomatic with its "don't you think/could've" while #4 is pretty blunt/curt and not even allowing Alistair the option to decide whether he should've told you earlier.I disagree with your reading in its entirety. The first option - using the "!?" punctuation - to me seems far more expressive and aggressive, particularly as it is followed by a second question that begins with the accusatory construction "You didn't think..."
I said #3 was intended to be neutralI only read #1 and #2 as clearly moving the conversation forward, and I don't think there's any indication from the context #2 is meant to be neutral. "Bastard" can be an insult (albeit not that serious). In hindsight the "royal" is meant to tip you off as to the joke but I don't see that as definitive in the least.
#2 certainly isn't because like you say, "bastard" is pretty insulting, and it's overall a joke only along the lines of facepalm-inducing "jokes" Hawke tends to make in DA2.
Part of the writer's intent is reflected in the way the NPC responds.
Also, this isn't like the real world. The writers know what the PC's line is and can craft their NPC's response accordingly. That doesn't happen in real life, which is what leads to confusion between the intent of the speaker ("Sorry, I didn't mean it that way!"), and the reaction of the listener ("But that's how it sounded.")
This would require some useful mechanism for predicting the NPC reaction. And I don't think we should have one.
The writer's intent is only in the game if you decide it is.
So let's assume it doesn't happen in the game either. That neatly solves the problem.
Let's talk intent shall we? I am an actor, and thus, I spend an inordinate amount of time figuring out the intent of a character and how to reflect that when speaking. Because, and don't get this wrong, EVERYONE has intent. Intent is why. Why are you saying this. This can manifest itself into wanting something from someone, maybe a reaction, maybe a physical thing. Other times it's because it *needs* to be said. Such as 'character's mother just died, thus he is world-raging', this is also wanting something. Someone to tell you it's okay, or that *mother-dying* didn't actually happen, or simply for release.
In the realm of silent VA for a main character, and VA for everyone else, intent manifests itself as everyone else's lines. Because, 8/10 times, intent WORKS. It does. If I wanted to ****** you off, I could be sarcastic, accuse you of something, laugh *at* you with acid in my tone. Calling Alistair a royal bastard means he responds positively, treating it as a joke, because that's what he heard. You (the player) don't have control over intent. It's just the writer's intent instead of the characters. if you (the character), said that line sarcastically, or with derision, in order to get a negative reaction, said negative reaction would have happened. Alistair wouldn't have laughed, or took it well, he would have, again, responded in kind, upset or angry. Because, behind Alistair is an actor (yes, an actor), and he's responding to the line in addition to it's tone or intent. He's being told (most likely), what the PC is saying is a joke. And he responds, in character, to *that*. If he was told, it is being said with a blank stare, his reaction would be entirely different. If he was told to react to every scenario, all of *his* tone would be lost and the acting would suffer. Because there is no proper response to everything a line could be. Too many contradictions to make anything other than an exposition dump plausible. People react to how a person says something more than what they say. EDIT: There are catch-all responses, but they also tend to lack intent and translate into non-emotional "...ok....". Which says nothing about anything really.
Short acting lesson:
When getting something from a conversation, a reaction to how one is behaving, what their inordinate goals are, etc.
~60% is body language.
~30% is tone, i.e. how a character says something.
~10% is what they are saying, and this number often goes down depending on what one is saying (the others go up.)
This past couple weeks has had a lot of old arguments brought back up again huh?
I like both given that it fits the overall feel of the game. I never roleplay in the manner that I am the character so it doesn't bother me if I do not have full control over their personality and words. I find that as long as I feel like I can manipulate the character enough in regards to the overall story of the game I am happy. I don't expect to play a warden character that refuses to fight the blight and would rather try to make himself king of the darkspawn in DA:O. some might say we should be able to even if it is a inevitable game over, however I just feel like that would just be to much of hassle to do just to please a (I'm my opinion) minority.
Right. And it's never knowable outside your own head.Let's talk intent shall we? I am an actor, and thus, I spend an inordinate amount of time figuring out the intent of a character and how to reflect that when speaking. Because, and don't get this wrong, EVERYONE has intent. Intent is why. Why are you saying this. This can manifest itself into wanting something from someone, maybe a reaction, maybe a physical thing. Other times it's because it *needs* to be said. Such as 'character's mother just died, thus he is world-raging', this is also wanting something. Someone to tell you it's okay, or that *mother-dying* didn't actually happen, or simply for release.
That's not nearly often enough to be a useful tool, and given the frequency with which I am accused of having an intent I don't based on how I said something, it also seems high.In the realm of silent VA for a main character, and VA for everyone else, intent manifests itself as everyone else's lines. Because, 8/10 times, intent WORKS. It does.
How do you get from that to concluding that the joke was expressed? That he perceived it doesn't mean it was there. Only that he perceived it.If I wanted to ****** you off, I could be sarcastic, accuse you of something, laugh *at* you with acid in my tone. Calling Alistair a royal bastard means he responds positively, treating it as a joke, because that's what he heard.
Again, you're drawing unsupported conclusions.You (the player) don't have control over intent. It's just the writer's intent instead of the characters. if you (the character), said that line sarcastically, or with derision, in order to get a negative reaction, said negative reaction would have happened. Alistair wouldn't have laughed, or took it well, he would have, again, responded in kind, upset or angry. Because, behind Alistair is an actor (yes, an actor), and he's responding to the line in addition to it's tone or intent. He's being told (most likely), what the PC is saying is a joke. And he responds, in character, to *that*.
Sadly as has already been mentioned the silent protagonists days are numbered. I guess I can take it or leave it though.
Voice makes them more human, especially if everyone else in the game has a voice. I don't just want to hear the protagonist grunt.
Does voice makes a protagonist more human? That depends on who you've asked the question to; for me the answer is no. A voiced protagonist makes it harder for one to role play the character. A voiced protagonist makes a game feel like an interactive movie instead of a game.
I've never liked the silent protagonist when you can 'see' the character. It's fine if you're in isometric third-person (Baldur's Gate, Fallout 1/2) or when you can never actually see your character speaking (TES series, modern Fallout games) but with the perspective and method Bioware uses for the modern games it just looks really awkward.
Sadly as has already been mentioned the silent protagonists days are numbered. I guess I can take it or leave it though.
There are still quite a few excellent RPGs with silent protagonist. Games like 'Shadowrun Returns: Dragonfall', 'Wasteland 2' and Divinity Original Sins (well, DOS has a few voiced dialogues but not all of it).
Personally, I think all the flashy graphics and voice acting are just gimmicks.
Retour en haut
