257 réponses à ce sujet

[Teddie Sage]

Voiced or no deal. I'm not really a fan of silent protags.

[Fast Jimmy]

Why are we conflating neutrality with blandness though.

Dialogue options in Inquisition aren't split into 3 personality archetypes as they were in DAO and DA2.

Several times, the three dialogue options were simply three approaches you can take to enhance the conversation and is independent of the personality archetypes.

Is that blandness? Does the character have to stick to an extreme personality type to remain interesting?

If anything the Inquisitor is very much like the Warden, except he actually talks. Let's not kid ourselves and make the implication that a silent protagonist can sound "in many different ways". If you're generally polite, you're going to always sound "polite" and picking aggressive options when necessary will be "aggressive".. much like the Inquisitor.

It's all theoretical nonsense really.

<Your character walks up to a castle wall and witnesses an approaching army, numbering in the thosuands. Your companion looks at you kverlooking the invaders who will be trying to kill you all soon.>

We will overcome this force. <said quietly, with steely determination>
We will overcome this force. <said with loud bravado>
We will overcome this force. <said with closed eyes, as a prayer to the heavens>
We will overcome this force. <said with shaky in confidence, fear betraying in your quiver>

<Your companion bows and says "as you say, milord/lady.">

That's one line that could be delivered and imagined in multiple ways. The key? The NPC's reaction. More neutral responses (or ones with always stay in line with the NPC's character, regardless) make a much wider range of silent lines acceptable. I don't see how that's theoretical at all.

[Fast Jimmy]

There is a middle ground for everything and frankly Inquisitor is also very defined macho guy even when it's a she in which cases it becomes comical, so they definitely didn't nailed neutrality and moderation here, even if this was potentially their intend. But my bigger issue is the rigid posture and lack of interaction and gestures, i don't remember Hawke having much of it either. Plus the animation in itself is robotic.

On the other hand the facial animation suffers not from neutrality but from being just plain bad, partially because it's poorly tuned to the face skeleton and partially because it is too simplistic. It's like watching a school play. It doesn't work for the kind of realism they went, it lacks micro-expressions and general nuances. It's not convincing and the mechanics that makes one expression stuck to the face for very long makes it even worse

So you are saying there is a middle ground, but then go on to list a laundry list of things the character should do, express and emote that might come in conflcit with a character a player might try to create? Unless you are planning to allow for conversation options that range from smirking to smiling to beaming to an exasperated grimace all for one line of dialogue, then you are arguing for a more set-protagonist... you just want it to be the set protagonist you want (which is apparently not a macho dude bro).

[ThreeF]

I do, but I downloaded 60 mods to make him interesting lol.

The best pt I had in Oblivion was when I tossed the amulet and decided to play an archer, aside for shopkeeper not a single line was spoken to anyone. No side-quests whatsoever.

[katokires]

I was just playing DA2, Anders and Isabella talking and my Hawke says something I would never ever say... so sad =(

But Hawke >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abysschasmpituniversemultiverse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Inquisitor

But letting me choose what to say is a lot better. Bioware writes hundreds of character can't these greed ones let me have AT LEAST my PC?

[Lebanese Dude]

We will overcome this force. <said quietly, with steely determination>
We will overcome this force. <said with loud bravado>
We will overcome this force. <said with closed eyes, as a prayer to the heavens>
We will overcome this force. <said with shaky in confidence, fear betraying in your quiver>

<Your companion bows and says "as you say, milord/lady.">
 

 

Right, but you picked an example where it's possible to imagine all those responses because it's non-interactive.

 

Any reaction from the companion in an interactive discussion must be neutral in order to fit all those possible imagined responses otherwise it breaks the character.

 

This basically limits the interaction with NPCs and would either make them neutral to your response (as your example) or contradict it by reacting to a canonical interpretation of your choice.

 

I remember asking Morrigan something about Flemeth in an entirely friendly tone and she construed it as condescending when the input didn't feel condescending at all. I instantly reloaded.

 

Also I can apply the same imagination to this.

 

When talking to Solas:

 

You seem to know a great deal about it all -> Curious

You seem to know a great deal about it all -> Suspicious

You seem to know a great deal about it all -> Impressed

 

The voice of the VA fit all three descriptions when I played different inquisitors. 

 

 

 

P.S. I edited the nonsense part of my post, as I felt it made the impression that I felt this conversation is trivial when it's not.

[CronoDragoon]

It's a balancing act that is impossible to do both things exceptionally at the same time.

While that may be true, fans are willing to accept a middle ground that's adequate. The preference for things to be very specific and optimal is one largely contained to a small subset of fans. The complaints about combat are similar. While gripes might be had all around, it's still the case that both people who enjoy RPGs and people who enjoy action games might find Dragon Age interesting and the combat acceptable. Compare this to if Dragon Age focused on doing an iso combat system very well, or full-on switching to Dragon's Dogma combat. Sure they may be doing one thing optimally, but they've alienated too many people in the process.
 

It's not as simple as you make it out to be...

I'm not actually saying the Inquisitor is bland. I just meant that this has been the one criticized aspect of this PC dialogue system compared to DA2's.

I'm actually a pretty shameful role-player because I don't really care what my PC says. I mostly meta-game and instead focus on crafting an overall narrative that I enjoy out of the personality archetypes given to me. So Hawke for example is a criminal who only cares about her family and close friends. Otherwise she's vicious and enjoys dark humor. Exactly how Hawke portrays this through dialogue is never something I've concerned myself with.

[ThreeF]

So you are saying there is a middle ground, but then go on to list a laundry list of things the character should do, express and emote that might come in conflcit with a character a player might try to create? Unless you are planning to allow for conversation options that range from smirking to smiling to beaming to an exasperated grimace all for one line of dialogue, then you are arguing for a more set-protagonist... you just want it to be the set protagonist you want (which is apparently not a macho dude bro).

I sort of am. You can do this actually:

 

Instead or additionally  to accents in CC you could possibly choose the "personality" of your character's voice, it would be still limiting but it can add variety .

[Br3admax]

Going back to people pretending I'm not there while they talk about me? No thanks. 

[Lebanese Dude]

I sort of am. You can do this actually:

 

Instead or additionally  to accents in CC you could possibly choose the "personality" of your character, it would be still limiting but it can add variety .

Honestly the accents add a lot of variation.

I played my dwarf male for a good while with the American VA, and every line felt and sounded differently to me.

 

For example, the British VA chuckles in disbelief when he says "You still think I did this to myself"

 

The American VA sounds more irritated and angry than shocked. His deliveries were consistently more direct as well. 

 

This is just an example though. Alex Wilton Reagan was pretty convincingly irritated and angry at several times so I'm not necessarily implying that the more neutral Sumalee does them better.

 

Basically, one can always pick a VA that aligns with how they want to present their character.

[Fast Jimmy]

While that may be true, fans are willing to accept a middle ground that's adequate. The preference for things to be very specific and optimal is one largely contained to a small subset of fans. The complaints about combat are similar. While gripes might be had all around, it's still the case that both people who enjoy RPGs and people who enjoy action games might find Dragon Age interesting and the combat acceptable. Compare this to if Dragon Age focused on doing an iso combat system very well, or full-on switching to Dragon's Dogma combat. Sure they may be doing one thing optimally, but they've alienated too many people in the process.

And they've alienated many trying to do both and not doing either very well, too. On all fronts. They also tried to be an open world RPG with a deep story and character building. And how many complaints have they received about side quests and empty areas and a disconnect from the plot?

At this point, Bioware has changed the formula drastically for this series with every game they release now. Because they try to appease everyone with half measures and middle grounds, no fan knows what to expect for a dragon age game in the future. One can't even nail down what a dragon age game even feels like, because it depends on which of these three formulas you like best is the "true" dragon age game experience.

I find the people who so vehemently say "Bioware has succeeded in making a middle ground" only see the part of the formula that they like being met and not evaluating if it really does serve all people's needs equally.

[ruggly]

Going back to people pretending I'm not there while they talk about me? No thanks. 

 

Nobody likes talking subway sandwiches anyways.

[Fast Jimmy]

I sort of am. You can do this actually:

Instead or additionally to accents in CC you could possibly choose the "personality" of your character's voice, it would be still limiting but it can add variety .

Yes, but the amount of metagaming involved to find out what type of character the game allows you to create is staggering. That's a lot of play through "research" just to take your first stab at playing a character you want.

[Lebanese Dude]

Yes, but the amount of metagaming involved to find out what type of character the game allows you to create is staggering. That's a lot of play through "research" just to take your first stab at playing a character you want.

Ok. Let's assume that voiced protagonists will always be present from now on.

 

What is a solution to make it easier to roleplay a character fluently on the first go?

[CronoDragoon]

I find the people who so vehemently say "Bioware has succeeded in making a middle ground" only see the part of the formula that they like being met and not evaluating if it really does serve all people's needs equally.

The success of BioWare's middle ground can be analyzed by sales. If people continue to buy Dragon Age games, then it's working. Considering Inquisition had the best day one sales of any BioWare game, it doesn't appear that Dragon Age 2 actually alienated that many people. And if Dragon Age 2 didn't, I sincerely doubt Inquisition did. Even for those people who are disappointed in how the optional content was implement, the main story and companions themselves have been well-received. So you can bet those people who play BW games for the story but were disappointed in the dilution of content in Inquisition will still buy DA4.

[Nic Mercy]

I'd enjoy voice protagonists more if we had a wider variety of voices to choose from. DA:I made a little headway there by giving us two different voices to pick for male and female inquisitors. But I'd really like more options than that. The problem with that is the expense.

[ThreeF]

Honestly the accents add a lot of variation.

Oh yes it  definitely does, but mostly because it's two different people take on the same role. even adding couple more actors could help. I mostly speaking i terms of  variety in animation.

 

 

Yes, but the amount of metagaming involved to find out what type of character the game allows you to create is staggering. That's a lot of play through "research" just to take your first stab at playing a character you want.

Deciding whenever you want to play mostly as aggressive brute or reasonable diplomat is not staggering. The simple form of it exists in NWN actually where you get to choose your battle cry.

 

(I do however realize that it could be costly, I'm just saying that it is doable at least to an extend and at very least the simplistic facial expressions need to be improved, if nothing else to improve the believability of the reaction involved.)

[Bob Walker]

I have nothing against silent protagonists in games like DA:O or NWN2, but I have to agree (as some CronoDraggon said) that ship has sailed.

 

The more cinematic the game is, the more anachronistic the silent protagonist will seem to be, normally portraying inexpressive, blank, staring faces while every character around is talking.

 

And I strongly dislike the way some JRPGs work with silent protagonists, putting some talkative idiot together with the main character all the time, in order to speak in his/her  behalf, like happens in Suikoden V.

[Lebanese Dude]

 

Deciding whenever you want to play mostly as aggressive brute or reasonable diplomat is not staggering. The simple form of it exists in NWN actually where you get to choose your battle cry.

Can I get you a ladder, so you can get off my back?

*plays a friendly Warden*

[Zeroth Angel]

I prefer the silent protagonist.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Dear lord, no voice. Out of all the semi-popular to popular "evolutions" the DA franchise has gone through, voiced protagonist is in my top 2-3 most disliked ones. Especially with more than one voice per sex, I simply find it a budget loss. Not to mention that it "happened" to occur at the same time as the inclusion of the infamous dialogue wheel. Instead of a list of long , elaborate responses, we just have two-three "quirky" remarks. No. I'd much rather have to read a wall of text and have multiple ,distinct, possible choices than get to hear a voice spew sitcom lines.

[ThreeF]

Can I get you a ladder, so you can get off my back?

*plays a friendly Warden*

Thank you very much, but it's cozy where I am I like high places (like any fool)

[sjsharp2011]

I do like DA origins but the lack of a voice from my character does irritate me given that all the other characters have voices so I'd always vote for having a voice for mine.

[Lebanese Dude]

 voice spew sitcom lines.

 

The Inquisitor's dialogue is rather restrained and less caricature-ish than Hawke. I wouldn't equate it to a sitcom style of conversation

 

Also the sitcom style you're referring to can easily be applied to the Warden. Most of the Warden's jokes and jerk actions were outright insane.

 

"We don't have time let's go. *stabs soldier*. I SAID WE HAD NO TIME".

"I heard you're making a killing. Me too!"

"So? Go help Alistair cook dinner"

 

If those aren't sitcom I don't know what is. They're funny in context, but kinda batshit insane in practice.

 

The Inquisitor is a more normal "human" than both previous protagonists.

[X Equestris]

I'm positive that we will be having a voiced protagonist.