257 réponses à ce sujet

[Shahadem]

Needs to be voiced. It really bothered me in DA:O that my character had no voice and that despite having no voice everyone knew exactly what I didn't say.

[Esperard]

Voiced or not, I don't think it would make any differences for the RP because it's clear that for Inquisition, Bioware had a vision for the main character and how he should be. We only have variations of the same character instead of the different characters so to me, it's not between voice or no voice but just between being us or Bioware's character...

 

And back on the thread, I would like the voice because it worked well with the Warden, it made for a better replay value but at the end, I felt more attached to Shepard or Hawke so I choose the voice but they need to give us choices

[efive_lol]

Always have preferred silent protagonists. My imagination covers it well, and I cannot stand some voices. Its at a level of is it just not so bad it ruins it. Most of this opinion comes from my play through of the witcher, I hate geralts voice, I can't stand it and I always skip anything he has to say. The other thing I hate is having my characters persona enforced on me, though this mostly Is due to that garbage chat wheel. I find myself trying to guess whatever the hell my character might say rather than focusing on how the other party might respond. Have to save literally every time I talk to any other character in the game. This was especially true for Cassandras romance in dai, I try to say something good and it turns into the most snarky garbage pickup line. I like diversity but I hate the feeling that this is not my character by being kept at arms reach from him, having a voice only adds to this.

[efive_lol]

You make a good point esperard. I would like to know from bioware if they plan to make future characters their own or ours. Personally I want my own.

[Tex]

Voiced

[Farangbaa]

I have, several times in fact. Planescape Torment is one of my all-time favorites. Thus the reason for my rhetorical question. And to answer my question, I guess, that dialogue choice led to only two or three different responses, none which actually influenced the discussion after that.
 
For me, the reason it is absolutely infuriating to see that image trotted out as some proof or concept is due to several reasons. First, even when PsT came out, it was anomaly, which is one of the reasons it such a cult classic these days. To somehow present that as the norm of the old RPGs is just utterly ridiculous. Second, that is the most amount of choices in any dialogue in PsT, so when it is presented, it doesn't even represent the game itself accurately while choosing one of the simpler scenes in DA2 as a comparison. Third, it contributes nothing to discussion, except to make it clear that the person posting it doesn't really want to discuss or debate anything. Fourth, the two scenes in the figure utterly defeats the very argument it is used to support.
 
See, the argument I see that image used for is how much choice and complex dialogues the older games used and it is without a doubt true that PsT had one of the most complicated dialogue systems ever implemented, with the flow of dialogue a wonder to behold. However, the scene that is shown there has no impact on future dialogue or events. It essentially gives a large number of options in a flashy, but doesn't actually react to those choices, making it essentially a flash over substance scene in the game. While the DA2 comparison, by the way awesome moment to choose a bugged image as that clearly how most people saw that scene, has people react at least nominally differently to the Hawke's responses and it might even impact how the companions think of him/her.
 
So I guess the point made with that picture is that it is more important to have a large amount of text instead having it impact anything, thus again prompting flash over substance. And I just don't agree with that.

This.

It's the same when people talk about DA:O and 'I have 5-7 fully fleshed out options instead of just 3 paraphrases'.

No, you don't. You have 2-3 options and 4-5 investigate options that don't further the conversation in any way and just leave you at the same point with 1 less investiage option to take.

That's less than DA:I's 3-5 + investigate options, just to be perfectly clear here.

I guess people really love the illusion of choice or something.

[wright1978]

Voiced, definitely adds to immersion for me. Wasn't really a fan of Warden being silent.

[New Kid]

Voiced, if they continue to have great voice actors!

[Han Shot First]

Voiced.
 

Bioware should never again have a protagonist who isn't fully voiced. Even at the time DA:O was released I thought it was one of the game's flaws. 

[God]

Voiced. For reasons mentioned, plus it just seems like a step backwards.

[BraveVesperia]

I much prefer voiced companions, it helps them have more of a presence in the world and a more emotional reaction.

[Draining Dragon]

I guess people really love the illusion of choice or something.

I know they do. That's why Dragon Age: Illusion of Choice just won countless GOTY.

In fact, Inquisition did such a great job of creating illusion of choice that I was actually convinced at first that my Mage/Templar decision mattered.

Sure, Origins had some illusion of choice, as did older RPGs; however, they pale next to the railroads that drive the course of modern RPGs.

But I digress.

I honestly prefer a silent protagonist. It forces the writers to give us power over our characters; they can't just use auto-dialogue to rip the character from our control, like they did with Shepard in ME3. It also means the game doesn't run the risk of breaking immersion with emotionless voice acting/misuse of emphasis (as Inquisition did) or overacting (as DA2 did). A voiced protagonist can work if its done well, as in ME1 and ME2, but ME3, DA2, and DAI show that it has a weak side. Actually, I would also throw the entire Witcher series in as evidence for why voice acting can backfire; Geralt's voice is downright painful to listen to.

Though everything in this post is just my opinion, so feel free to season it as much as you please.

[RinuCZ]

Definitely voiced.

 

For example, Planescape Torment is among my favorites. It has a voiceless characters but I don't recall Nameless at all expect for being a silent dude who can't die and used to be a cruel jerk. Because he can be so many things, his replies never really manage to form a concrete person - as opposed to his companions who are very clearly defined.

 

I like RPGs for their flexibility in what kind of protagonist you can be but I prefer when there is still a basic outline of that character. And some voice actors deliver pretty awesome job which gives the character an unexpected liveliness.

 

One thing would be great, though. Less UK English in US and Canadian titles, the better .

[RinuCZ]

Actually, I would also throw the entire Witcher series in as evidence for why voice acting can backfire; Geralt's voice is downright painful to listen to.

I think it was solid. I listened to "original" Polish version because the past taught me that any secondary dubbing is usually off. Just listen to American VO of anime. But i digress.

[Aren]

An interesting experiment would be to try a middle-way.......

When the player talk to the randoms Npc no voice but more dialogue option, for the important scenes and companions ,  voice.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I know they do. That's why Dragon Age: Illusion of Choice just won countless GOTY.

In fact, Inquisition did such a great job of creating illusion of choice that I was actually convinced at first that my Mage/Templar decision mattered.

Sure, Origins had some illusion of choice, as did older RPGs; however, they pale next to the railroads that drive the course of modern RPGs.

But I digress.

I honestly prefer a silent protagonist. It forces the writers to give us power over our characters; they can't just use auto-dialogue to rip the character from our control, like they did with Shepard in ME3. It also means the game doesn't run the risk of breaking immersion with emotionless voice acting/misuse of emphasis (as Inquisition did) or overacting (as DA2 did). A voiced protagonist can work if its done well, as in ME1 and ME2, but ME3, DA2, and DAI show that it has a weak side. Actually, I would also throw the entire Witcher series in as evidence for why voice acting can backfire; Geralt's voice is downright painful to listen to.

Though everything in this post is just my opinion, so feel free to season it as much as you please.

 

That, right there is why I will always favor a silent protagonist.

 

Character Agency, Roleplaying, Immersion. 

 

But then again this is 2015 and the market is filled with simpletons who want feels, shallowness, button mashing, over-the-top explosion and being hand held like a baby....So Bioware will always have them voiced...

[nikitalauncher]

I wouldn't have thought it before playing DA2, but I prefer voiced. I can understand the argument that unvoiced protagonists feel immersive, but I thought they did a great job in Inquisition particularly of creating a voiced protagonist that has personality but is still flexible enough that I could make him/her my own. I've formed stronger attachments to my voiced characters. Going back and playing Origins now, the Warden feels to me a bit like a cardboard standee with the face cut out.

[Captmorgan72]

Definitely voiced. Michael Dorn needs to voice the qunari though.

[Bleachrude]

My personal rule.

 

Either EVERYONE is voiced or NOBODY is voiced. I'm sorry but the DA:O method just annoys me more than anything else...

[KaiserShep]

But then again this is 2015 and the market is filled with simpletons who want feels, shallowness, button mashing, over-the-top explosion and being hand held like a baby....So Bioware will always have them voiced...

 

See it's one thing to criticize the design of the game, but it's another to start slinging this inane claptrap about how it exists because people are stupid. Blah blah blah depth characterization blah blah you guys are so stupid something something.

Edit: My hostility is uncalled for, but this kind of thing gets kind of irksome.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

See it's one thing to criticize the design of the game, but it's another to start slinging this inane claptrap about how it exists because people are stupid. Blah blah blah depth characterization blah blah you guys are so stupid something something.

 

I am just channeling the Altmer side & the Tevinter side of my personality... 

[KaiserShep]

I am just channeling the Altmer side & the Tevinter side of my personality... 

Goddamn Vints. They ruin everything!

[BadgerladDK]

Voiced all the way for me, I can't go back to the weird "everyone but the main character speaks" thing. Always felt like I was playing a mute who'd hold up quickly scribbled sheets of paper to communicate.

 

I can deal with games where everyone is silent, prefer full voice, though. But never again the weird mute in a world of talkers protagonist.

[Farangbaa]

I know they do. That's why Dragon Age: Illusion of Choice just won countless GOTY.

In fact, Inquisition did such a great job of creating illusion of choice that I was actually convinced at first that my Mage/Templar decision mattered.

Sure, Origins had some illusion of choice, as did older RPGs; however, they pale next to the railroads that drive the course of modern RPGs.

Just how do the decisions in DA:O matter more than this particular one in DA:I?

Whatever the hell you do, you still end up fighting the Archdemon after battling through Denerim. Which you do after winning/losing the Landsmeet.

Don't go pretending your choices actually changed the story there. Hell, in light of the finale, they ALL didn't matter. They only start mattering in the slideshow after the game: exactly the same as DA:I.*

Yeah yeah yeah, you got to decide which troops to deploy. Whooptiedoe. Like those troops actually mattered one bit. I don't even think I summoned a single one of them on my last run. That's how much they mattered.

*One exception: your decision in the Circle might affect if you can save Connor without sacrificing Isolde. And that's it. For the ENTIRE GAME.

[Balek-Vriege]

Just how do the decisions in DA:O matter more than this particular one in DA:I?

Whatever the hell you do, you still end up fighting the Archdemon after battling through Denerim. Which you do after winning/losing the Landsmeet.

Don't go pretending your choices actually changed the story there. Hell, in light of the finale, they ALL didn't matter. They only start mattering in the slideshow after the game: exactly the same as DA:I.*

Yeah yeah yeah, you got to decide which troops to deploy. Whooptiedoe. Like those troops actually mattered one bit. I don't even think I summoned a single one of them on my last run. That's how much they mattered.

*One exception: your decision in the Circle might affect if you can save Connor without sacrificing Isolde. And that's it. For the ENTIRE GAME.

 

I never used the troops because why would I sacrifice them when I was an Arcane Warrior god that could take the whole Darkspawn army solo.

 

A matter of fact old school RPGs (real old school not DAO made in 2009) had entire plot lines and endings be illusion of choice, because they ended up not being canon game to game and therefore many decisions were non-existent in future plots.  Your character's gender or race? Yeah it wasn't male/female or orc/elf/human/tiefling/alien/whatever in the preceding game.  Your evil ending?  Yeah didn't happen you were goody two-shoes.  You romanced who?  No one.  The only hope was that there was some dialogue nod to what you did last game.  Like "Hey I don't remember that event quite like that. Didn't we...  ?"  or "Didn't the hero do this?" only to be answered vaguely and never mentioned again.

 

In many cases there weren't alternative plot lines where you could ally with completely different factions that showed up throughout an installment.  Usually the most you would get out of a faction questline is an item or two and the plot would continue on exactly the same path.  Fallout 1 and 2 really seemed to be the best games at the time for player choice and even so some of the results of decisions were lackluster.

 

I think we're just a little spoiled now with the amount of choices we in fact do have in games and now they all seem lackluster when if the same were in games 10-15 years ago we would be utterly wowed.