so is it fair to say that the argument in this thread isn't whether the main character is voiced or not but the conversation wheel vs list of dialog?
It is possible to have a dialog list and voiced. I don't understand why they are mutually exclusive in this argument.
Guest_Israfel_*
so is it fair to say that the argument in this thread isn't whether the main character is voiced or not but the conversation wheel vs list of dialog?
It is possible to have a dialog list and voiced. I don't understand why they are mutually exclusive in this argument.
In my opinion, that's the worthwhile argument, but I don't think that's what the OP meant. I also totally agree with you. There's absolutely no reason we can't have the full text of the dialogue before we select it for the voice actor to bring to life. The only argument I can see is that some people who like a completely cinematic experience want to have the particulars left out, but even then, all you have to do is put the full text on some sort of a delay. If somebody just wants a really simple experience, I can't image it takes them more than 3 or 4 seconds to make a decision based on diplomatic/kind, sarcastic/charming, aggressive/direct. They probably just pick the colour they're accustomed to picking, anyway.
That's nice. It doesn't have very much to do with what I said, or with the person to whom I was talking, but it's nice. Good for you.
I let Sylvius's response stand on its own since the argument he put forth was very similar to my own and I didn't want to repeat the same argument in another post. This is a discussion on a public forum, so people are within their right to drop in and out of other people's conversations. I'll clarify my position here, but please don't take this as an attack on how you play the game. Despite the layout of my post I'm not trying to have a quote-war nor am I trying to prove how right I am. This is a subjective discussion that I'm engaging in because I find it interesting. Anyway, to sum up my basic point of view: I love having a voiced PC, but I concede that I do find it limits my ability to roleplay.
JWvonGoethe commented that he could not understand how anybody could argue a certain point of view about personal gaming preference.
No, I certainly agree that people are within their rights to put any argument across. If someone finds that having a voiced PC helps them roleplay better then I have absolutely no problem with that. But I have trouble understanding the argument.
If you can ignore or mentally rewrite NPCs' voiced/acted reactions to a PC comment, there's no intrinsic reason for you to be unable to ignore or mentally rewrite voiced PC comments themselves.
I agree, but I have never once ignored or mentally rewrote a voiced NPC's reaction. What I have done is have the Warden insult Alistair only to have him laugh amiably in response. Then I'll have thought "Maybe Alistair mistakenly assumed I was joking" or "Maybe he knew I was being serious but decided to laugh to show that he was above it by taking it as a joke". I don't actually know his precise motivations, I'm just guessing while being open to the possibility that I might be misinterpreting him.
Either way, voiced or unvoiced, you are playing as a character written and implemented by someone else, and you lack the ability to demonstratively roleplay that character in ways that the writers and programmers did not intend.
Two actors - both playing the same part in two different stagings of the same play - can bring vastly different interpretations of that character to the stage. This happens all the time in theatre. At least one of those actors is portraying that character in a different light to what the playwright intended. Both actors' interpretations of the character are equally valid however.
Similarly, I act the Warden's dialogue and body language in my mind when I play the game. There are lines of dialogue in DA:O that I've used multiple times with different Wardens and each Warden had a different reason for saying those lines. Some of my interpretations of these lines are bound to go against the authorial intent, but if that doesn't have any discernible impact on the game then it is of no consequence to me.
In my experience of DA:O, I do not recall any specific instance where authorial intent limited my ability to roleplay to an extent that it bothered me. In a general sense, there are boundaries placed on roleplaying in DA:O - the Warden cannot be a 10 foot darkspawn from Antiva who only speaks in rhyme - but these limitations are broad enough that I am happy to work within them. With a voiced PC the limitations are more stringent since there is only one way the actor delivers each line.
I don't 'demonstratively lack the ability' to play the game this way. I did play the game this way, it worked and I enjoyed it.
Most people nowadays like watching movies more than roleplaying. We will just have to deal with it OP.
A game can't be a RPG if it has a voiced protagonist?
Well, now I've heard it all.
I agree, but I have never once ignored or mentally rewrote a voiced NPC's reaction. What I have done is have the Warden insult Alistair only to have him laugh amiably in response. Then I'll have thought "Maybe Alistair mistakenly assumed I was joking" or "Maybe he knew I was being serious but decided to laugh to show that he was above it by taking it as a joke". I don't actually know his precise motivations, I'm just guessing while being open to the possibility that I might be misinterpreting him.
The problem is that this approaches forces the PC to be fundamentally passive, in a way that actually breaks assertive characters permanently. On this approach, misunderstandings exist, the PC is aware that there is a misunderstand, but will never even ask a clarifying question and instead suffering under the misunderstanding permanently.
This also ignores the fact that we actually have true OC metaphysical knowledge about what Alistiar subjectively thinks about what you say: Approval. IRL, he might deflect it with humour but deep down hate me - life is tricky like that. In DA:O, we know that it (1) made it him good and (2) that he likes us more as a result.
I find this thread very disheartening. It is why I feel games are taking such huge steps backwards. Again this is how I feel I know I don't speak for everyone. But the fact that most people can't get into a character that is spoon fed to them is scary to me. The Warden had a MUCH better and defined personality if you use your imagination and roll play them as who you want them to be. Hawke and Shepard are both just Hawke and Shepard. No matter how you play those two they are just Hawke and Shepard. But the Warden could be anyone. I miss that very much.
I find this thread very disheartening. It is why I feel games are taking such huge steps backwards. Again this is how I feel I know I don't speak for everyone. But the fact that most people can't get into a character that is spoon fed to them is scary to me. The Warden had a MUCH better and defined personality if you use your imagination and roll play them as who you want them to be. Hawke and Shepard are both just Hawke and Shepard. No matter how you play those two they are just Hawke and Shepard. But the Warden could be anyone. I miss that very much.
I see this get thrown around a lot. I do like Shepard, I thought he/she was a great character, but it is true the classic CRPG approach allows for greater diversity in personality. I think the bottom line is 'if it fits our game, we'll use a voice' and vice-versa... other examples include Skyrim if you can call it an RPG, I don't feel it would benefit from a voiced protagonist.
Guest_Israfel_*
Why does Dragon Age II have silly paraphrases? The Order dictates!
I find this thread very disheartening. It is why I feel games are taking such huge steps backwards. Again this is how I feel I know I don't speak for everyone. But the fact that most people can't get into a character that is spoon fed to them is scary to me. The Warden had a MUCH better and defined personality if you use your imagination and roll play them as who you want them to be. Hawke and Shepard are both just Hawke and Shepard. No matter how you play those two they are just Hawke and Shepard. But the Warden could be anyone. I miss that very much.
Look, you can have a difference of opinion, but it's absolutely unacceptable to insult other people for not sharing your preference.
I'm not going to reciprocate the insults - but what I think is disheartening is that you waded into this thread just to demean the tastes of other gamers.
Look, you can have a difference of opinion, but it's absolutely unacceptable to insult other people for not sharing your preference.
I'm not going to reciprocate the insults - but what I think is disheartening is that you waded into this thread just to demean the tastes of other gamers.
I started my entire post by stating it was just my personal opinion. And if you are offended by what I said you need to develop a much thicker skin since I was not even attacking anyone with my comments.
I find this thread very disheartening. It is why I feel games are taking such huge steps backwards. Again this is how I feel I know I don't speak for everyone. But the fact that most people can't get into a character that is spoon fed to them is scary to me. The Warden had a MUCH better and defined personality if you use your imagination and roll play them as who you want them to be. Hawke and Shepard are both just Hawke and Shepard. No matter how you play those two they are just Hawke and Shepard. But the Warden could be anyone. I miss that very much.
When I want to RP a character that is 100% me, I play tabletop. It's the only way to guarantee that I have complete control over the character.
When I want to RP a character with cinematics and a story that someone else tells, I play video games. That means I must necessarily give up some power in order for the character to actually fit in with the world that the devs created. I lose some control, but I also gain the rich storytelling and cinematics of the game.
It's not laziness. It's a different kind of game.
In my opinion, that's the worthwhile argument, but I don't think that's what the OP meant. I also totally agree with you. There's absolutely no reason we can't have the full text of the dialogue before we select it for the voice actor to bring to life. The only argument I can see is that some people who like a completely cinematic experience want to have the particulars left out, but even then, all you have to do is put the full text on some sort of a delay. If somebody just wants a really simple experience, I can't image it takes them more than 3 or 4 seconds to make a decision based on diplomatic/kind, sarcastic/charming, aggressive/direct. They probably just pick the colour they're accustomed to picking, anyway.
I would hate that. There is nothing worse than reading an entire line of dialogue, only to have the VA parrot the exact same line back at you. It would be tedious and annoying, especially because the VA would definitely say it differently from how we imagined it in our heads.
The problem is that this approaches forces the PC to be fundamentally passive, in a way that actually breaks assertive characters permanently. On this approach, misunderstandings exist, the PC is aware that there is a misunderstand, but will never even ask a clarifying question and instead suffering under the misunderstanding permanently.
This also ignores the fact that we actually have true OC metaphysical knowledge about what Alistiar subjectively thinks about what you say: Approval. IRL, he might deflect it with humour but deep down hate me - life is tricky like that. In DA:O, we know that it (1) made it him good and (2) that he likes us more as a result.
I understand that criticism and I've definitely experienced it. It does place a limitation on how I roleplay but it also forces me to come up with a creative solution without breaking my fundamental character design. It's also I would say a writing problem rather than anything to do with voice acting; I've had this problem in both DA:O and DA2, but it was easier to work with in DA:O.
With an unvoiced Warden, I insult Alistair, he takes it as a joke and then I am unable to correct his misunderstanding. In that case the game forces me to modify what my character is thinking, but that can actually be a good thing for roleplaying. I could say the Warden takes a sadistic pleasure in seeing how Alistair is oblivious to how much he was just insulted, so the Warden decides not to correct Alistair. I could say the Warden feels guilty when Alistair responds in a good natured way to something that was intended as a vicious insult and the Warden regrets his insult and so does not correct Alistair. Or I could say that the Warden is so surprised by Alistair's unexpected response that the Warden is lost for words. On top of that, the actual insult could be delivered in a dry manner, a vicious manner, a jovial manner, a sarcastic manner or a dopey manner, all depending on my Warden's personality, mood and opinion of Alistair. This is how I actually play DA:O, doing this kind of thing constantly and I enjoy it.
If the Warden had been voiced, the line can only said in a friendly joking manner, Alistair takes it well and that's it. Where is the room for roleplaying? Yes I had another couple of dialogue options that I could have chosen instead, but the unvoiced Warden had those options too.
Even when an unvoiced Warden is misinterpreted, I still have more roleplaying opportunities than I do with a voiced Warden. I understand that what seems to me to be imaginative character design might seem to someone else like a series of problematic mental leaps, but this is how I enjoy playing the game. I still get the appeal of voice acting and as I've stated I have no preference for one or the other. I find that unvoiced PCs are better for roleplaying, but voiced PCs bring a range of other benefits that balance this out.
I understand that criticism and I've definitely experienced it. It does place a limitation on how I roleplay but it also forces me to come up with a creative solution without breaking my fundamental character design. It's also I would say a writing problem rather than anything to do with voice acting; I've had this problem in both DA:O and DA2, but it was easier to work with in DA:O.
There's no possibility of a creative solution: either you have an assertive character who corrects misunderstands, or you have a passive character who does not. Being active/passive isn't universal across all situations, so you don't need mental gymnastics to justify why the Warden can take charge with, say, the plot but would never do more than meekly agree no matter how his/her comments are interpreted.
With an unvoiced Warden, I insult Alistair, he takes it as a joke and then I am unable to correct his misunderstanding. In that case the game forces me to modify what my character is thinking, but that can actually be a good thing for roleplaying. I could say the Warden takes a sadistic pleasure in seeing how Alistair is oblivious to how much he was just insulted, so the Warden decides not to correct Alistair. I could say the Warden feels guilty when Alistair responds in a good natured way to something that was intended as a vicious insult and the Warden regrets his insult and so does not correct Alistair. Or I could say that the Warden is so surprised by Alistair's unexpected response that the Warden is lost for words. On top of that, the actual insult could be delivered in a dry manner, a vicious manner, a jovial manner, a sarcastic manner or a dopey manner, all depending on my Warden's personality, mood and opinion of Alistair. This is how I actually play DA:O, doing this kind of thing constantly and I enjoy it.
If the Warden had been voiced, the line can only said in a friendly joking manner, Alistair takes it well and that's it. Where is the room for roleplaying? Yes I had another couple of dialogue options that I could have chosen instead, but the unvoiced Warden had those options too.
There's no room for roleplay in your case. What you're doing is not roleplaying - you're engaging in an elaborate mental fantasy that sometimes is contradicted by the actual unassailable evidence in the game (i.e., Alistair loved your comment and is emotionally closer to you after you say it).
What you really have is a situation where an ostensibly effective speaker (potentially such an incredibly persuasive speaker that he or she can shatter the actual closely held views of very powerful adults) who is completely incapable of insulting another human being in this particular situation.
I should clarify my view, because I think I was a bit too rhetorical in my last post.
I think RP is about the reaction of the game-world to your choices and, especially, your response to that reaction.
If I pick a dialogue, that's the action. That's basically meaningless, aside from whatever mental fantasy I've crafted to justify picking it. Next, there will be some in-game reaction to it. Now I have an interaction that I can react to - does my PC respond aggressively, react with violence, back away? Who is she? What will she do?
That's the interesting question. The mental fantasy is just the fluff that gets it started, but the RP requires active participation from the game, and that's impossible without the PC being defined enough for the game to have something against which it can react.
Guest_Israfel_*
I would hate that. There is nothing worse than reading an entire line of dialogue, only to have the VA parrot the exact same line back at you. It would be tedious and annoying, especially because the VA would definitely say it differently from how we imagined it in our heads.
Yeah, I understand. We disagree on this point. I even understand why we disagree and mentioned how that problem could be resolved--the hover delay. I honestly wouldn't mind the tedium of waiting to read an entire line of dialogue.
I started my entire post by stating it was just my personal opinion. And if you are offended by what I said you need to develop a much thicker skin since I was not even attacking anyone with my comments.
Saying something "is your opinion" isn't a defence. It's just an infantile attempt to avoid the responsibility that attaches to making a disparaging comment. Something can be insulting without it actually registering as affecting anyone's mood. I think you're rude. You didn't hurt my feelings.
Let me quote what you said:
But the fact that most people can't get into a character that is spoon fed to them is scary to me.
The Warden had a MUCH better and defined personality if you use your imagination and roll play them as who you want them to be.
Aside from the general slur that people who like VO aren't imagine, we've got hyperbolic comments about this how "most" people do this, and how it's scary to you.
Guest_Amanda Palmer_*
I find this thread very disheartening. It is why I feel games are taking such huge steps backwards. Again this is how I feel I know I don't speak for everyone. But the fact that most people can't get into a character that is spoon fed to them is scary to me. The Warden had a MUCH better and defined personality if you use your imagination and roll play them as who you want them to be. Hawke and Shepard are both just Hawke and Shepard. No matter how you play those two they are just Hawke and Shepard. But the Warden could be anyone. I miss that very much.
Indeed. I hate Shepard. Yet I spent three games "RP'ing" her. But I hate her. I picked all the dialogue I wanted, but when it came out of her mouth - I wanted to punch her right in the face. I dunno. It didn't feel like it was my character. More like an actor interpreting the responses I quietly picked out.
Saying something "is your opinion" isn't a defence. It's just an infantile attempt to avoid the responsibility that attaches to making a disparaging comment. Something can be insulting without it actually registering as affecting anyone's mood. I think you're rude. You didn't hurt my feelings.
Let me quote what you said:
But the fact that most people can't get into a character that is spoon fed to them is scary to me.
The Warden had a MUCH better and defined personality if you use your imagination and roll play them as who you want them to be.
Aside from the general slur that people who like VO aren't imagine, we've got hyperbolic comments about this how "most" people do this, and how it's scary to you.
Well I will say you do seem to be one of those people that scare me. But lets leave it at that.
Guest_Dobbysaurus_*
No
There's no possibility of a creative solution: either you have an assertive character who corrects misunderstands, or you have a passive character who does not. Being active/passive isn't universal across all situations, so you don't need mental gymnastics to justify why the Warden can take charge with, say, the plot but would never do more than meekly agree no matter how his/her comments are interpreted.
I would never design a character who is always assertive in any situation. It would neither be a convincing design nor would I expect it to be workable in any videogame. For me, the unvoiced PC is better for roleplaying, but I do not believe it or anything else can ever be perfect: there are some character designs that just don't work in DA:O, but I find I'm less limited in this respect in that game than I am in DA2 (a game which I love and where I have still managed to roleplay several unique Hawkes to a satisfying degree).
There's no room for roleplay in your case. What you're doing is not roleplaying - you're engaging in an elaborate mental fantasy[...]
That bit seems like roleplaying...
[...]that sometimes is contradicted by the actual unassailable evidence in the game (i.e., Alistair loved your comment and is emotionally closer to you after you say it).
Nope, none of the explanations I put forth in my last post to explain the Warden's lack of a response were contradicted by Alistair's approval increase.
I did however put forth a scenario earlier in the thread where I stated that Alistair might have understood it was an insult but laughed anyway. I can see how that contradicts Alistair's approval, so I'll retract that explanation.
What you really have is a situation where an ostensibly effective speaker (potentially such an incredibly persuasive speaker that he or she can shatter the actual closely held views of very powerful adults) who is completely incapable of insulting another human being in this particular situation.
And if my understanding is correct, your solution is to voice the PC so that the line can only be spoken in a friendly joking manner, meaning the Warden cannot be misinterpreted. That's actually a perfectly valid and sensible way to deal with the problem. However, I have another solution that appeals to me, which is to accept that the Warden can be misinterpreted. It just doesn't jar with me that an incredibly powerful speaker might occasionally miss the mark.
I should clarify my view, because I think I was a bit too rhetorical in my last post.
I think RP is about the reaction of the game-world to your choices and, especially, your response to that reaction.
If I pick a dialogue, that's the action. That's basically meaningless, aside from whatever mental fantasy I've crafted to justify picking it. Next, there will be some in-game reaction to it. Now I have an interaction that I can react to - does my PC respond aggressively, react with violence, back away? Who is she? What will she do?
That's the interesting question. The mental fantasy is just the fluff that gets it started, but the RP requires active participation from the game, and that's impossible without the PC being defined enough for the game to have something against which it can react.
Evidently I spent over an hour writing up my response and didn't see this until just now. We both have very different definitions of roleplay. I think that's the root of our general disagreement.
Evidently I spent over an hour writing up my response and didn't see this until just now. We both have very different definitions of roleplay. I think that's the root of our general disagreement.
Not a worry! I will be as thoughtful in my response as you were in yours. 
I do think that, preferences aside, there's a really satisfying discussion to be had on the relative merits of RPG design.
I would never design a character who is always assertive in any situation. It would neither be a convincing design nor would I expect it to be workable in any videogame. For me, the unvoiced PC is better for roleplaying, but I do not believe it or anything else can ever be perfect: there are some character designs that just don't work in DA:O, but I find I'm less limited in this respect in that game than I am in DA2 (a game which I love and where I have still managed to roleplay several unique Hawkes to a satisfying degree).
The difficulty I have with RPGs is personal, in the sense that my personality clashes so very strongly with the typical outline for a (silent) RPG protagonist. In a nutshell, RPG protagonists are (now) passive in respect of the plot or authority figures (basically, you typically run errands for people and otherwise accept quests, in a very "stand there and receive information" sort of way) but very active in their personal lives and personal relationships (i.e., shaping the views of people around then, actively surrounding themselves with particular people, etc.).
I'm the opposite: I'm very active in what would be "plot" or "quest" type situations (which often gets me into hot water), but actually pretty passive in my relationships (i.e., I will pretty much let anything that isn't an outright criminal offence slide and feel totally indifferent to it) and will be OK being around basically akin kind of person. It's why, for example, when I just when with my intuitive responses in DA2 I got everyone to max friendship by Act II. Well, aside from Carver, but he was a jerk, and I very much respond in kind to that. 
A voiced protagonist works for me because, as you said in a subsequent response, it makes it very clear under what limits I am actually supposed to be under. The Silent PC just makes it impossible for me to RP because it makes it impossible for me to know the actual scope of permissible actions in the game.
One example that sticks out in DA:O is the HN Male storyline. I was completely baffled, at first, by the inability to put yourself forward as a candidate in the Landsmeet (since you're basically divinely ordained by that point) or, more frustratingly, only being able to rule as Anora's toadie.
Nope, none of the explanations I put forth in my last post to explain the Warden's lack of a response were contradicted by Alistair's approval increase.
I did however put forth a scenario earlier in the thread where I stated that Alistair might have understood it was an insult but laughed anyway. I can see how that contradicts Alistair's approval, so I'll retract that explanation.
I wasn't very clear in my response, and for that I apologize.
What I meant to say, really, was that the internal monologue that you see your character as having is, to me, not really RP as much as it is just writing (and, since it's game related, a sort of exercise in fan-fiction). It has no impact on the game. And otherwise, I'm a very intuitive person, so I just don't think explicitly in that way. Thinking for me is more like... breathing? It's automatic. When I RP, I just occupy my character's headspace. I'm making choice for them, but not actively thinking out what they're doing, just... embodying them, in a sense.
All of which makes it very important, to me, to know what the limits actually are on what is and isn't possible in the game.
VO lets me know that.
And if my understanding is correct, your solution is to voice the PC so that the line can only be spoken in a friendly joking manner, meaning the Warden cannot be misinterpreted. That's actually a perfectly valid and sensible way to deal with the problem. However, I have another solution that appeals to me, which is to accept that the Warden can be misinterpreted. It just doesn't jar with me that an incredibly powerful speaker might occasionally miss the mark.
It doesn't bother me that the Warden can be misinterpreted. It bothers me that it's impossible to correct it. That's where I run into the problem, and that's what I think the conceptual difficulty with your position.
Add me to the list of people who prefer a voiced character. Doubly so if we get to add personality like in DA2.
What I meant to say, really, was that the internal monologue that you see your character as having is, to me, not really RP as much as it is just writing (and, since it's game related, a sort of exercise in fan-fiction). It has no impact on the game. And otherwise, I'm a very intuitive person, so I just don't think explicitly in that way. Thinking for me is more like... breathing? It's automatic. When I RP, I just occupy my character's headspace. I'm making choice for them, but not actively thinking out what they're doing, just... embodying them, in a sense.
All of which makes it very important, to me, to know what the limits actually are on what is and isn't possible in the game.
VO lets me know that.
OK, your definition of roleplay makes sense. I've no doubt been short-sighted in assuming everyone looks at RP the same way.
I get how my view of RP might seem like fluffy headcannon to others so I'll try to outline how I define it, for the sake of interest rather than argument. I don't actually give my Wardens an internal monologue. Rather, they have a character design which gets added to, but never gets fundamentally changed. So for example I once made a ruthless, politically ambitious HN who hated magic. She married Alistair. He did the DR with Morrigan. But that inevitably meant that Morrigan's child might one day make a claim for the throne. That went against my character design - the Warden was politically ambitious and valued her place in history, so she would want her own children on the throne. That meant I had to update her character design with a new motivation: kill Morrigan to stop the OGB taking the throne.
It might seem like ridiculous fan-fic, but I'm very reluctant to update a character design with a motive that cannot be reflected in game. I felt I had no choice in this instance, however, since it was the only way I could maintain my character's internal consistency.
Except, after hunting down Morrigan in Witch Hunt, she correctly inferred my character's motivation (Morrigan: Then what is your concern? That the child will claim Ferelden's throne?) Then the Warden stabbed Morrigan, which exactly fitted the Warden's motives. I've been surprised in fact how many times DA:O has allowed me to express very specific motives.
I get that this style of RP might seem overly thought out. But I don't write any of it down. It's something I do automatically, it's impulsive and I rarely think any of it out in words.
It doesn't bother me that the Warden can be misinterpreted. It bothers me that it's impossible to correct it. That's where I run into the problem, and that's what I think the conceptual difficulty with your position.
I suppose I think of the lack of clarification as a dialogue choice in itself, where I'm choosing the reason for silence. The Warden didn't correct Alistair's misunderstanding, so I have to formulate a motive as to why the Warden did not do that. That motive has to be consistent with the character design. If I'm lucky I'll be able to reflect that new motive in future decisions I make and, almost always, it is possible to do that in some way. There are always an infinite amount of decisions I can't make, so being unable to correct someone once doesn't seem like a big deal. For me, RP is about building an internally consistent, interesting character design around those limitations.
In an ideal game those limitations wouldn't exist, but I accept that they are inevitable.
Retour en haut
