4356 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Most of the games I already play have railroaded main characters. Uncharted, DMC, etc.. I'm just looking for the best of both worlds. My favorites there are ME2 and DA2. I think Bethesda could do that.

Yes... but realize. You are stealing a franchise I have been playing for over twenty years from me by doing so. Or rather, Bethesda is taking away the form of gameplay that I loved about the series to chase your sales.

That's something I understand, but not something I'm particularly elated about.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm a thief then?

Apologies. I'm feeling the same way about DA actually, sort of. I don't exactly relate to the type of fan it's going for now. Just for different reasons.

So yeah, I suppose that sucks. But I hope you're not expecting the same experience over 20 yrs either. You have to move on a little at least.

I was able to move on from the isometric view, because, well... prior to Kickstarter, that was a pipe dream in general.

But what really shined about the Fallout series was the options. You could tackle a problem 90 different ways and the game would very often react to that. This included a huge list of dialogue options for even seemingly pedestrian encounters.

FO3 was a step down from Fallout 1 and 2 in this department (especially with its main story), but still in the same neighborhood. Fallout:NV hit it out of the park (for my own tastes).

Adding a voiced protagonist with a cinematic design bent may cut the legs out from the entire theme.

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

I was able to move on from the isometric view, because, well... prior to Kickstarter, that was a pipe dream in general.

But what really shined about the Fallout series was the options. You could tackle a problem 90 different ways and the game would very often react to that. This included a huge list of dialogue options for even seemingly pedestrian encounters.

FO3 was a step down from Fallout 1 and 2 in this department (especially with its main story), but still in the same neighborhood. Fallout:NV hit it out of the park (for my own tastes).

Adding a voiced protagonist with a cinematic design bent may cut the legs out from the entire theme.

i thought they were advertising more ways with dealing with problems, including the game dealing with failed quests and more non lethal options

[In Exile]

Try to play Mass Effect with any character besides bad arse space marine. You can't do it. You say you can't play your assertive leader... yet that's all Shephard was. That's all the character will ever be. It's a flat, one-dimensional sxperience dressed up in red and blue dialogue.

DA:I does it a little better, but only because it defaults to a generally level, non-committal delivery of everything. Which prevents loud or soft personalities and delivers a strictly "middle of the road" type of character.

You state my feelings and arguments are subjective as if your own aren't as well. It's a little nonsensical for you, InExile. Perception is reality.

Of course they're subjective. I didn't deny my feelings are subjective. What I said was objective was the fact I can't play an assertive character without VO in a 3D game. You seem to think I want to play some other character, and you're trying to convince me how those characters aren't available; I don't. But that's not my point.

My point is simple. You want to say VO is inferior (or bad) because it breaks your character. My point is that the lack of VO ALSO breaks characters - it just breaks different characters. There's no difference from an RP perspective besides the fact that it just happens that what you like to RP is made easier (or possible) without VO, whereas what I like to RP is made impossible without it.

You're completely wrong about the scope of characters available. Yes, with VO, ultimately they're all active. But that doesn't matter. It's not even a distinction - because without VO they're all passive. The only reason you can say one is "better" is that you've made a subjective judgement about what type of characters you want to play.

And let me give you a different example: try playing DAO as someone who doesn't self-identify as a Grey Warden. That's impossible. Try telling Wynne you think the Grey Wardens should be disbanded. Try outing Grey Warden secrets. That's impossible. This character can't exist because Bioware didn't write the dialogue options. There's absolutely no difference between a scene that doesn't give you a dialogue option we might think is completely necessary to our character and the game not giving us the option to take an action we think is necessary. The scene might only feel different if you're more OK with deviation from your character design in some cases. I'm not - DAO broke my characters far, far more often than DAI did. On par with ME1, and less so than ME2.

All we're quibbling about is whether the game supports the characters I like to play or those that you like to play, and the things we feel allows us to have a character that "represents" the kind of qualities we like to add to a PC. That isn't subjective - whether or not a feature is available, or a dialogue option is there, is as much an objective question of fact as anything is an objective question of fact.

More importantly, you're wrong about Shepard being nothing more than bad ass (the space marine is no different from the Warden being a GW or the Inquisitor being Inquisitor). Shepard isn't one dimensional - there's just no dimensions you happen to like. But that's not on VO. It's how I dislike the Warden in DAO for denying me almost all of the options I'd RP when playing that game if I had the chance.

[In Exile]

I was able to move on from the isometric view, because, well... prior to Kickstarter, that was a pipe dream in general.

But what really shined about the Fallout series was the options. You could tackle a problem 90 different ways and the game would very often react to that. This included a huge list of dialogue options for even seemingly pedestrian encounters.

FO3 was a step down from Fallout 1 and 2 in this department (especially with its main story), but still in the same neighborhood. Fallout:NV hit it out of the park (for my own tastes).

Adding a voiced protagonist with a cinematic design bent may cut the legs out from the entire theme.

We know that's false, because we've seen what Obsidian did with a lot less VO and a lot less money in Alpha Protocol. Reactivity isn't about VO. It's about design, and most companies have no idea how to design games like that one.

Not to mention the example doesn't work because NPCs didn't have VO either.

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

Of course they're subjective. I didn't deny my feelings are subjective. What I said was objective was the fact I can't play an assertive character without VO in a 3D game. You seem to think I want to play some other character, and you're trying to convince me how those characters aren't available; I don't. But that's not my point.

My point is simple. You want to say VO is inferior (or bad) because it breaks your character. My point is that the lack of VO ALSO breaks characters - it just breaks different characters. There's no difference from an RP perspective besides the fact that it just happens that what you like to RP is made easier (or possible) without VO, whereas what I like to RP is made impossible without it.

You're completely wrong about the scope of characters available. Yes, with VO, ultimately they're all active. But that doesn't matter. It's not even a distinction - because without VO they're all passive. The only reason you can say one is "better" is that you've made a subjective judgement about what type of characters you want to play.

And let me give you a different example: try playing DAO as someone who doesn't self-identify as a Grey Warden. That's impossible. Try telling Wynne you think the Grey Wardens should be disbanded. Try outing Grey Warden secrets. That's impossible. This character can't exist because Bioware didn't write the dialogue options. There's absolutely no difference between a scene that doesn't give you a dialogue option we might think is completely necessary to our character and the game not giving us the option to take an action we think is necessary. The scene might only feel different if you're more OK with deviation from your character design in some cases. I'm not - DAO broke my characters far, far more often than DAI did. On par with ME1, and less so than ME2.

All we're quibbling about is whether the game supports the characters I like to play or those that you like to play, and the things we feel allows us to have a character that "represents" the kind of qualities we like to add to a PC. That isn't subjective - whether or not a feature is available, or a dialogue option is there, is as much an objective question of fact as anything is an objective question of fact.

More importantly, you're wrong about Shepard being nothing more than bad ass (the space marine is no different from the Warden being a GW or the Inquisitor being Inquisitor). Shepard isn't one dimensional - there's just no dimensions you happen to like. But that's not on VO. It's how I dislike the Warden in DAO for denying me almost all of the options I'd RP when playing that game if I had the chance.

exactly, why the hell cant i tell Duncan to go to hell when he tries to recruit me? Or why cant i help Vasir and shoot Liara in the head? Why cant i work with the Illusive Man in ME3? Why cant i tell the mages and Templars to shove it up their asses?

[Fast Jimmy]

exactly, why the hell cant i tell Duncan to go to hell when he tries to recruit me? Or why cant i help Vasir and shoot Liara in the head? Why cant i work with the Illusive Man in ME3? Why cant i tell the mages and Templars to shove it up their asses?

The answer to that is, of course, budget constraints. And VO adds to the budget (or, at the least, means fewer things can be done with the same budget).

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

The answer to that is, of course, budget constraints. And VO adds to the budget (or, at the least, means fewer things can be done with the same budget).

the Duncan argument still stands, no VO needed

[Fast Jimmy]

We know that's false, because we've seen what Obsidian did with a lot less VO and a lot less money in Alpha Protocol. Reactivity isn't about VO. It's about design, and most companies have no idea how to design games like that one.

Not to mention the example doesn't work because NPCs didn't have VO either.

Alpha Protocol had a set protagonist, with three permutations (the so called Bond, Bourne and Bauer spy-personalities). So your example doesn't work, either.

And NPCs not being fully voiced (or cinematic, for that matter) is a perfectly good solution for the discontinuity. Then your character can be an assertive leader, or interact with others in any way they wish. The silent protag works at its finest when there is little to VO at all.

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

Alpha Protocol had a set protagonist, with three permutations (the so called Bond, Bourne and Bauer spy-personalities). So your example doesn't work, either.

And NPCs not being fully voiced (or cinematic, for that matter) is a perfectly good solution for the discontinuity. Then your character can be an assertive leader, or interact with others in any way they wish. The silent protag works at its finest when there is little to VO at all.

you forgot the jackass personality

[Fast Jimmy]

the Duncan argument still stands, no VO needed

You can, in some Origins, express a "screw you" attitude. The Dwarf Noble comes to mind, where he basically lets you know that it's either join him or die in the Deep Roads. Or the Dalish Origin, where you can call him a shem, but he tells you that you will die a slow painful death if you don't come.

None of these are limiting the TYPES of characters you can make. Only what actions you can do with them. You can create a character who dislikes the Wardens - there are numerous dialogue options to reflect that you don't identify with them or enjoy your new role. You can play an assertive leader character that talks to people in a straight, confident and no-nonsense manner (despite what InExile says). You can play a Human Noble who doesn't care the least about his family or past.

The game is limited in what actions you can take because it is a video game and will ALWAYS be limited in the actions you can take. You can be an assertive leader and not give the big speech. You can hate the Wardens and not burn the treaties your army is built on. You can be an elvish racist and not kill Duncan in his sleep or run away during cover of night. These are characters you can play, even if you can't do EVERYTHING you'd want to do as them.

Try to play a Shephard who is stoic, quiet or not a people person. Try playing a Hawke who is subtle... or not human (a casualty of moving to the voiced character). Or an Inquisitor who is always excited and passionate about their work and the people around them. Its not a matter of the game not letting you do something... the game will literally be impossible. Shephard will be off giving speeches completely uncoaxed, Hawke will goody-two-shoes-avenger/maniac-jokester/blood-thirsty-jerk right in your face, at all times. The Inquisitor, in an attempt to course correct from over-the-top Hawke, is a deadpan as they come.

[In Exile]

Alpha Protocol had a set protagonist, with three permutations (the so called Bond, Bourne and Bauer spy-personalities). So your example doesn't work, either.

And NPCs not being fully voiced (or cinematic, for that matter) is a perfectly good solution for the discontinuity. Then your character can be an assertive leader, or interact with others in any way they wish. The silent protag works at its finest when there is little to VO at all.

 

You're just switching the goalposts now. You didn't say that you valued FO2 because of the rich and varied personalities you could express. You said you valued it because it allowed you to approach plots in a varied number of ways. Let me quote you:

 

But what really shined about the Fallout series was the options. You could tackle a problem 90 different ways and the game would very often react to that. This included a huge list of dialogue options for even seemingly pedestrian encounters.

 

You say "included a huge list of dialogue options", which we might very well quibble with, but that's not really your main point. If you wanted that to be your main point, then I apoligize, but it wasn't clear from what you wrote (and obviously "90 different ways" is a hyperbole).

 

I don't have an issue with NPCs being voiced - in fact, if there's no PC VO, I absolutely don't want them to be voiced. I had to remove voices in POE to be able to play it, because they didn't even portray voices sensibly (the text and speech weren't lining up).

[Fast Jimmy]

Aggressive Hawke is probably the subtlest. He comes off as more introverted and more my more style personally. Still a badass, but doesn't like being bothered.

Who gives a **** if he's not human though. That's not what the story is about. It's a specific immigrant story. Not a Warden.. and not the retarded Random Jesus prisoner in DAI. That issue is not about VO.

To channel my inner Sylvius the Mad, the story can be about anything the player wishes. It's all about options - the option to play as a different race, each with its own backstory, lord and culture, was one of the coolest things about DA:O to me. Dialogue options are the major form of choice in most RPGs, but the ability to craft someone of a multitude of races (and have that ability mean something in game) is a great form of option.

[In Exile]

You can, in some Origins, express a "screw you" attitude. The Dwarf Noble comes to mind, where he basically lets you know that it's either join him or die in the Deep Roads. Or the Dalish Origin, where you can call him a shem, but he tells you that you will die a slow painful death if you don't come.

None of these are limiting the TYPES of characters you can make. Only what actions you can do with them. You can create a character who dislikes the Wardens - there are numerous dialogue options to reflect that you don't identify with them or enjoy your new role. You can play an assertive leader character that talks to people in a straight, confident and no-nonsense manner (despite what InExile says). You can play a Human Noble who doesn't care the least about his family or past.

 

You're wrong. You can't play these characters - because the options don't exist. I appreciate that you can't understand that because you don't actually want to play the same character. But expressing this view, directly and then having people react to it is important, and that doesn't exist in DA:O.

 

You can't say that anything negative about the Wardens as an organization. The option full on doesn't exist. Saying that you personally hate Duncan isn't the same as saying that you hate everything that Duncan and the Wardens represent - these aren't the same views, and pretending that they exist is just dishonest.

 

You can't dominate a scene. You can't talk over Alistair during the endgame before Denerim and you can't talk over Duncan when you meet Cailan. That you want to say something else is assertive - note the obvious goalpost shift when you say "talks to people in a straight, confident and no-nonsense manner", which is never something I associated with being assertive in my previous post - is completely besides the point. I don't have the option to play the character I want. It's that simple, despite you trying to argue otherwise.

 

I don't get what you're having an issue with here - saying that VO offers different options, to play different types of characters, doesn't somehow demean or diminish your own experience of RP or what features you like. It simply prevents you from beating the drum that this is some absolutely superior form of medium for RP.

 

You can't play a human noble that says Duncan is a vile murder because he left your father to die. The option doesn't exist. The "because" clause is absolutely important. You want to say that getting the option to disparage Duncan is enough - the because can be in my head. But what I am telling you is that saying that outloud is central to the character, and being the kind of character who says this outloud is central to who I want to RP, and these options do not exist.

 

But there's a more important point.

 

None of these are limiting the TYPES of characters you can make. Only what actions you can do with them.

 

Yes, they do. Because the actions are the very things that define the type of character I have. As I'm going to show below, this is your own complaint about ME and DA2. Your position is contradictory.

 

If I have a character who wants to become King of Orzammar, and then options doesn't exist to even express that view or try to pursue it (even if I fail, because the plot can't always allow me to succeed), then you've broke my character. That's the same with a Cousland who wants to rule alone and seize power at a Landsmeet.

Actions are important. To me, actions are absolutely central. If my character can't do it, then I can't have the character. Because I play characters that follow through. Having some private thought - which mind you in an RPG is the equivalent of saying that Duncan survived Ostagar and is standing next to you, because that's all that headcanon is, the mental fantasy (and I don't mean fantasy in the disparaging sense; but rather the literla sense) - is not the same as having a character type.

 

The game is limited in what actions you can take because it is a video game and will ALWAYS be limited in the actions you can take. You can be an assertive leader and not give the big speech. You can hate the Wardens and not burn the treaties your army is built on. You can be an elvish racist and not kill Duncan in his sleep or run away during cover of night. These are characters you can play, even if you can't do EVERYTHING you'd want to do as them.

 

The game is limited in what you can do and what you can say. And what you can do and what you can say defines the character you have, not the private mental fantasy you invent about a character that has no way of being expressed in a game. Even your own complaint is about what you can do.

 

Try to play a Shephard who is stoic, quiet or not a people person. Try playing a Hawke who is subtle... or not human (a casualty of moving to the voiced character). Or an Inquisitor who is always excited and passionate about their work and the people around them. Its not a matter of the game not letting you do something... the game will literally be impossible. Shephard will be off giving speeches completely uncoaxed, Hawke will goody-two-shoes-avenger/maniac-jokester/blood-thirsty-jerk right in your face, at all times. The Inquisitor, in an attempt to course correct from over-the-top Hawke, is a deadpan as they come.

Let's say I agree with your characterization. Why can't I play a stoic Shepard? There's no quiet option. There's no action available where I can be quiet. Why can't I play a stoic Shepard? There's no stoic option. There's no action available where I can be stoic. Why can't I play a anti-social Shepard? There's no anti-social option. There's no action I can take when I can be any of these things.

 

This is absolutely about the game not allowing you do do something. It's ridiculous to even argue otherwise.

[Fast Jimmy]

You're just switching the goalposts now. You didn't say that you valued FO2 because of the rich and varied personalities you could express. You said you valued it because it allowed you to approach plots in a varied number of ways. Let me quote you:

But what really shined about the Fallout series was the options. You could tackle a problem 90 different ways and the game would very often react to that. This included a huge list of dialogue options for even seemingly pedestrian encounters.

You say "included a huge list of dialogue options", which we might very well quibble with, but that's not really your main point. If you wanted that to be your main point, then I apoligize, but it wasn't clear from what you wrote (and obviously "90 different ways" is a hyperbole).

I don't have an issue with NPCs being voiced - in fact, if there's no PC VO, I absolutely don't want them to be voiced. I had to remove voices in POE to be able to play it, because they didn't even portray voices sensibly (the text and speech weren't lining up).

...what? How are "lots of options" and "the ability to craft a wide variety of characters" diametrically opposed goals and/or admirable qualities in games? You need one to do the other.

[Fast Jimmy]

You're wrong. You can't play these characters - because the options don't exist. I appreciate that you can't understand that because you don't actually want to play the same character. But expressing this view, directly and then having people react to it is important, and that doesn't exist in DA:O.

You can't say that anything negative about the Wardens as an organization. The option full on doesn't exist. Saying that you personally hate Duncan isn't the same as saying that you hate everything that Duncan and the Wardens represent - these aren't the same views, and pretending that they exist is just dishonest.

Fine, let's just say I accept your position that the game offers absolutely zero statements that a player who doesn't like the Wardens (something I'f contest, but don't have the ability to document now)... what's your point? Do you HONESTLY think a voiced protagonist would somehow open up doors of new options about hating the main Jedi-organization of the game?

The argument isn't "DA:O offers every choice imaginable because it didn't have a VO." The argument is that ANY game without a VO offers more choice than one that does have one.

You can't dominate a scene. You can't talk over Alistair during the endgame before Denerim and you can't talk over Duncan when you meet Cailan. That you want to say something else is assertive - note the obvious goalpost shift when you say "talks to people in a straight, confident and no-nonsense manner", which is never something I associated with being assertive in my previous post - is completely besides the point. I don't have the option to play the character I want. It's that simple, despite you trying to argue otherwise.

Can you dominate the scene with Cassandra when you first wake up in your jail cell in DA:I? Can you talk over Sister Patriece when she starts spouting anti-Qunari propaganda? I don't see where a VO allows you to do the things you are talking about outside of ME2/3's interrupts.

If you are trying to say DA:O isn't the most perfect game in the world and doesn't offer every voice imaginable, then I'm not going to argue with you. If you are trying to say a VO lets you give The Big Speech at the climax of the game, I'm not going to argue with you, either. But if you are going to say that a VO options gives more options than a silent PC, then I'm going to have to disagree.