769 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

The simplest solution would be to just mute the volume on the protagonist's VO, but that still leaves the protagonist's animations. I just can't imagine very many people would be content with the silent option if it left long sequences of the PC flapping their lips. Unless you're overzealous about the silence, just muting the PC might take away form the whole rather than add to it.

It's the only feasible solution.

Chasing the ideal silent option is folly, because it would be way too expensive. The only way this is going to work is if it's cheap, and so that it doesn't look attractive to players who wouldn't like it (because BioWare insists on protecting players from themselves, something I find genuinely offensive).

This is also a good place to complain about how hostile Frostbite is to modding.

[rocklikeafool]

It's the only feasible solution.

Chasing the ideal silent option is folly, because it would be way too expensive. The only way this is going to work is if it's cheap

You know what's cheaper than implementing an option to turn off VO that's already paid for? Not implementing that option. 

 

 

 

This is also a good place to complain about how hostile Frostbite is to modding.

When have Mass Effect games EVER been modder friendly? The best we get are hair mods and retextures. You don't get anything deeper than that from any of the Mass Effect games. Oh, yeah...we got some dumb mod that claimed it "fixed" the ME3 ending, but it was just replacing video files.

[RoboticWater]

It's the only feasible solution.

Chasing the ideal silent option is folly, because it would be way too expensive. The only way this is going to work is if it's cheap, and so that it doesn't look attractive to players who wouldn't like it (because BioWare insists on protecting players from themselves, something I find genuinely offensive).

This is also a good place to complain about how hostile Frostbite is to modding.

I know, but its drawbacks make it a harder sell. I might be willing to believe that there's a decent population of players that would like the idea of a silent protagonist, but I believe that population vastly decreases when you'd have to sit through vestigial animations. At that point, the interested parties would probably just be you and a few others.

 

If muting only the VO's dialog were as simple as adding another variable slider, then it may be worth the hour it would take to add in the necessary variable hooks and another slider in the GUI. Of course, knowing software development, it might not be that simple.

 

I fully agree that modding is an excessively beneficial feature for games. However, complaining about Frostbite's lack of modding won't change the fact that releasing mod tools for an engine is no simple task. Even just removing the middle-ware would likely be a difficult task.

[Cyonan]

This is also a good place to complain about how hostile Frostbite is to modding.

 

As much as I agree with having mod support in a game, BSN is never what I would call a "good place" to complain about it.

 

Because BioWare has no control over Frostbite getting modding tools. If you want that, you need to go complain to EA/DICE. They don't pay attention to these forums.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I know, but its drawbacks make it a harder sell. I might be willing to believe that there's a decent population of players that would like the idea of a silent protagonist, but I believe that population vastly decreases when you'd have to sit through vestigial animations. At that point, the interested parties would probably just be you and a few others.

The evidence from the FO4 modding community suggests otherwise.

There have been two different approaches to modding in the silent protagonist in FO4. One replaces the audio files with empty files which play instantly, this causing the conversation to jump ahead to the NPC response (just like how DAO worked). The other sets the PC voice volume to 0, so the time necessary for the protagonist to speak still elapses. While I prefer the former, the latter mod is vastly more popular.

Just turning down the volume seems to be the preferred choice of players.

I fully agree that modding is an excessively beneficial feature for games. However, complaining about Frostbite's lack of modding won't change the fact that releasing mod tools for an engine is no simple task. Even just removing the middle-ware would likely be a difficult task.

They could just tell us what the middleware is and we could try to find some way to emulate it, but they won't do even that.

DICE seems to be actively discouraging modding.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because BioWare has no control over Frostbite getting modding tools. If you want that, you need to go complain to EA/DICE. They don't pay attention to these forums.

Oh, I've done that. I've asked DICE direct questions.

They don't respond. Their lack of response, however, doesn't dissuade me from asking again.

By "good place" I meant in this discussion. I want to publicize how mod-unfriendly Frostbite is.

[RoboticWater]

The evidence from the FO4 modding community suggests otherwise.

There have been two different approaches to modding in the silent protagonist in FO4. One replaces the audio files with empty files which play instantly, this causing the conversation to jump ahead to the NPC response (just like how DAO worked). The other sets the PC voice volume to 0, so the time necessary for the protagonist to speak still elapses. While I prefer the former, the latter mod is vastly more popular.

Just turning down the volume seems to be the preferred choice of players.

Interesting. I have to wonder if there's a confounding variable in the mix though. Having read comments on a few different silence mods, it seems that many would prefer to skip the lip sync.

Also, the most popular silent protagonist mod seems to use the file replacing method. The author is linking to a mute mod, claiming that it's a better solution, but the replacer method is still more popular.
 

They could just tell us what the middleware is and we could try to find some way to emulate it, but they won't do even that.

DICE seems to be actively discouraging modding.

Simply releasing the nonfunctional software and letting modders fix it would be simple. Removing the middle-ware to get it into that state might be difficult. EA would need to expend a great deal of effort just to get the engine into a state where modders can attempt to make it work, but even then EA is potentially risking copyright suits if they overlook some piece of licensed software during the removal process.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Interesting. I have to wonder if there's a confounding variable in the mix though. Having read comments on a few different silence mods, it seems that many would prefer to skip the lip sync.

Also, the most popular silent protagonist mod seems to use the file replacing method. The author is linking to a mute mod, claiming that it's a better solution, but the replacer method is still more popular.

The file replacer was available far earlier.

Simply releasing the nonfunctional software and letting modders fix it would be simple. Removing the middle-ware to get it into that state might be difficult. EA would need to expend a great deal of effort just to get the engine into a state where modders can attempt to make it work, but even then EA is potentially risking copyright suits if they overlook some piece of licensed software during the removal process.

I hope that future engine choices are informed by the need for the engine to be more useful to players.

[Cyonan]

Oh, I've done that. I've asked DICE direct questions.

They don't respond. Their lack of response, however, doesn't dissuade me from asking again.

By "good place" I meant in this discussion. I want to publicize how mod-unfriendly Frostbite is.

 

Having a discussion about it isn't bad, but it should be done with the understanding that it will not change anything. The people in charge of making that decision will not actually ever see or hear about the discussion.

 

The reason why DICE didn't respond is probably because they already responded in general before. It was along the lines of "It's too complex of an engine", which is a crap excuse but it's what they gave us.

[RoboticWater]

The file replacer was available far earlier.

Yes, but that does make your claim that the mute mod is "vastly more popular," a bit suspect, especially when I see a number of comments asking for the ability to skip the lip sync.
 

I hope that future engine choices are informed by the need for the engine to be more useful to players.

Currently, engine development is, like many other decisions in game development, informed by cost-effectiveness. The current development process is, while far more closed and proprietary, cheap and efficient. 

 

It's also important to note that EA isn't likely to change engines or create a new version of Frostbite any time soon. Unless EA planned on licensing their engine out like the Unreal engine, I wouldn't expect any paradigm shifts in the future.

 

Having a discussion about it isn't bad, but it should be done with the understanding that it will not change anything. The people in charge of making that decision will not actually ever see or hear about the discussion.

 

The reason why DICE didn't respond is probably because they already responded in general before. It was along the lines of "It's too complex of an engine", which is a crap excuse but it's what they gave us.

They have given us that crap excuse before, but I've read more in-depth explanations. The pipeline that Frostbite devs use is fairly complex (and apparently quite volatile) and has a lot of disparate moving parts some of which are tied into EA's server infrastructure. I can't remember where I read it, but IIRC, a Battlefield dev explained that there just wasn't an easy way to isolate the engine from their systems.

[SKAR]

Sure they do. That part is just sort of left up to you. The whole point of roleplaying, depending who you ask.

Spoiler

Speaking for myself alone, I enjoy both approaches, but it depends on the scenario and the game. Mass Effect (at least as we know it, and as I expect MEA will shake out), for example, I wouldn't want a silent protagonist. Shepard (and probably Ryder) are their own people, more or less. The enjoyment I get (apart from the gameplay itself, which I think is pretty fun in this case) is from directing the whole experience, and crafting an overarching story that I enjoy. Fallout on the other hand (and inevitably TES), a voiced protagonist ruins it. What I like to do in that sort of game is create a character concept and let him or her loose in the world and see what happens. A voiced (and strongly defined, for that matter) protagonist demolishes goddamn near all of the replayability that the older games had because it severely constricts my ability to create different characters.

I obviously wouldn't extend this to the other NPCs in either case. Honestly, the voice work for the companions is one of the things that makes them pop the most, particularly in a Bioware game. But they are their own people, and they can do whatever they want.

I agree not.

[KotorEffect3]

Forward not backwards.  There is zero benefit to a silent protagonist in this series.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Forward not backwards. There is zero benefit to a silent protagonist in this series.

Except for people who dislike the voice, either because they dislike voices generally, or because they dislike the specific voice performance within the game, or because they want to replay with a different character and have trouble doing that with the same voice each time.

There are lots of reasons why a player might prefer not to have a voice in a specific playthrough.

Me, I like to play against type, so any voice they choose that works for the character they intended is unlikely to work for me. In the ME trilogy, the obvious protagonist would be a brusque military type, so that's something I specifically wanted to avoid playing. But Mark Meer's performance was that of a brusque military type.

[SKAR]

Except for people who dislike the voice, either because they dislike voices generally, or because they dislike the specific voice performance within the game, or because they want to replay with a different character and have trouble doing that with the same voice each time.

There are lots of reasons why a player might prefer not to have a voice in a specific playthrough.

Me, I like to play against type, so any voice they choose that works for the character they intended is unlikely to work for me. In the ME trilogy, the obvious protagonist would be a brusque military type, so that's something I specifically wanted to avoid playing. But Mark Meer's performance was that of a brusque military type.

those people need to get their ears checked.

[KaiserShep]

Except for people who dislike the voice, either because they dislike voices generally, or because they dislike the specific voice performance within the game, or because they want to replay with a different character and have trouble doing that with the same voice each time.

There are lots of reasons why a player might prefer not to have a voice in a specific playthrough.

Me, I like to play against type, so any voice they choose that works for the character they intended is unlikely to work for me. In the ME trilogy, the obvious protagonist would be a brusque military type, so that's something I specifically wanted to avoid playing. But Mark Meer's performance was that of a brusque military type.

 

It's a fair bet that these people don't number nearly enough to make it on the radar, especially for the kind of game Mass Effect aims to be.

[Sanunes]

Except for people who dislike the voice, either because they dislike voices generally, or because they dislike the specific voice performance within the game, or because they want to replay with a different character and have trouble doing that with the same voice each time.

There are lots of reasons why a player might prefer not to have a voice in a specific playthrough.

Me, I like to play against type, so any voice they choose that works for the character they intended is unlikely to work for me. In the ME trilogy, the obvious protagonist would be a brusque military type, so that's something I specifically wanted to avoid playing. But Mark Meer's performance was that of a brusque military type.

 

People already have an option for that, you can turn off voice acting in the audio options of both Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age: Inquisition.  So you can have a game that is more like Baldur's Gate where all you are doing is reading.

[Sylvius the Mad]

People already have an option for that, you can turn off voice acting in the audio options of both Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age: Inquisition. So you can have a game that is more like Baldur's Gate where all you are doing is reading.

This is true.

This also demonstrates that the paraphrase is actually more of a problem than the voice is (because you can't tell what your character is going to say until after he says it), but this thread is specifically about the voice.

If we got better information about the line we were choosing then turning off the voices would be an excellent solution.

[TheChosenOne]

Bioware:

[sjsharp2011]

Bioware:

new it w2as only a matter of time before the Arishok turned up.

[JoltDealer]

Do you not understand what sunk costs are?

 

I do actually, but your stance seems to be stemming from the idea that the toggle would be made after the voice over had been done.  You can't get money back after its been spent, but planning for such a large amount to be potentially and purposely wasted is something that would and should get you fired.  Designing it that way from the ground up makes no sense.  If you have a voice-over budget of $100,000 and $66,000 goes to recording dialogue that may not be heard at all, that is ludicrous.  You'd be better off recording no voiced protagonist and spending all $100,000 on NPC dialogue, or not having any toggle at all.  It's an all or nothing sort of deal.  

 

Even then, 2/3 of any part of your budget being wasted is HUGE and I'm sure you understand enough about fractions and finances to understand why.  The most viable option I have seen so far is going with a silent protagonist from the start and having a paid, "voice protagonist" DLC pack come later.  That way both options are properly paid for, but there would still be some issues such as pricing and install sizes that I'm sure that fans would be irate about.  Male and female voices would likely have to be sold separately.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I do actually, but your stance seems to be stemming from the idea that the toggle would be made after the voice over had been done.

It is. The decision to record the voice was made months or years ago. That's not getting changed.

Given that they are going to record the voice anyway, the cost of that recording is a sunk cost.

You can't get money back after its been spent, but planning for such a large amount to be potentially and purposely wasted is something that would and should get you fired.

There's no waste. Anyone who wants to experience the voice will experience the voice.

What you say only makes senee if there's some benefit to EA arising from people actually consuming the voice, and a smaller cost associated with not including it at all.

And that's obviously not true.

You'd be better off recording no voiced protagonist and spending all $100,000 on NPC dialogue, or not having any toggle at all. It's an all or nothing sort of deal.

Not having the toggle doesn't change the cost of the voice. Nor does it improve even one person's gameplay. Nor does it attract even one extra customer.

You say you understand sunk costs, and then you clearly demonstrate that you don't.

Even then, 2/3 of any part of your budget being wasted is HUGE and I'm sure you understand enough about fractions and finances to understand why.

Explain it to me. What's getting wasted? What aspect of the voice recording wasn't necessary, given that anyone who wants the voice wants all of it?

The most viable option I have seen so far is going with a silent protagonist from the start and having a paid, "voice protagonist" DLC pack come later. That way both options are properly paid for, but there would still be some issues such as pricing and install sizes that I'm sure that fans would be irate about. Male and female voices would likely have to be sold separately.

The demand for the silent protagonist would be higher. They could well charge for the option to disable it (and I would happily pay for that option).

[JoltDealer]

It is. The decision to record the voice was made months or years ago. That's not getting changed.

Given that they are going to record the voice anyway, the cost of that recording is a sunk cost.
There's no waste. Anyone who wants to experience the voice will experience the voice.

What you say only makes senee if there's some benefit to EA arising from people actually consuming the voice, and a smaller cost associated with not including it at all.

And that's obviously not true.
Not having the toggle doesn't change the cost of the voice. Nor does it improve even one person's gameplay. Nor does it attract even one extra customer.

You say you understand sunk costs, and then you clearly demonstrate that you don't.
Explain it to me. What's getting wasted? What aspect of the voice recording wasn't necessary, given that anyone who wants the voice wants all of it?
The demand for the silent protagonist would be higher. They could well charge for the option to disable it (and I would happily pay for that option).

 

As I have stated in multiple threads, media production is what I studied, have a degree in, and do for a living.  I really hate pulling that card because it comes off as pretentious, but sometimes its necessary to get people to pay proper attention.  What you're saying may make sense in your head, but that's not how it's done.  You are getting sunk costs and prospective costs mixed up.  If the money is already spent -- check has been cashed and everything -- and you can't get it back, that's a sunk cost.  Deciding to do something like record voice over years in advance and planning according to its cost is a prospective cost.

 

Simply making the decision to record voices does not mean that it is then okay to plan for most of your budget potentially going to waste.  I say potentially because, when the option exists, you ensure that you get the most out of the resources available.  If 2/3 of your budget and recorded dialogue has the chance of never being heard even 10% of the time, that's not an effective use.  The more effective option is to dedicate 100% of your voice-over budget to NPC dialogue or eliminate the toggle entirely, which ensures that the all of the dialogue is heard and therefore a more effective use of resources.  This isn't complicated and anyone with common sense should see what I mean.

 

You want me to explain it to you?  Alright.  When you plan a budget, you want make sure your resources get used to the best of their ability -- efficiency is key.  Let's say that you plan a huge action sequence that costs $50,000 to film.  You spend it, you film it, and send it off to post, but the movie is too long and the scene is deemed unnecessary so it gets cut.  That's a sunk cost since there's no getting it back, but it wasn't planned that way and that's the point that you seem to have trouble grasping.  If you were to plan to put $50,000 into a scene that movie theaters could choose not to show from the get-go, that wouldn't be efficient because that same money could be used to improve other aspects of the film that are guaranteed to be seen by all audience members.  It'd be more efficient to drop something that people might not see in favor of what the audience is guaranteed to see.  Once again, I'm talking about things in the planning stage and not after-the-fact.

 

Look Slyvius, I respect you because your opinions are usually well-worded and more intelligent than most.  You're one of the few members on this forum that is like a familiar face to someone like myself, who has been frequenting the Bioware forums for the last decade.  People potentially not hearing something that you spent 2/3 of your budget on is a waste because the option to use it more effectively was there.  Yes, people buy the game and it all gets paid for in the end, but that's 2/3 of the budget that could've been used to add in more NPC conversations, more side quests, and more companion interactions.  This goes double when you account for the fact that most video games have something called a "word budget," which I'll openly admit I don't know much about.  However, you have to be clever and efficient when you plan out how to use your resources.  Of course there's no guarantee that things will go according to plan, but that's why you plan to be as efficient as possible.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

You want me to explain it to you? Alright. When you plan a budget, you want make sure your resources get used to the best of their ability -- efficiency is key. Let's say that you plan a huge action sequence that costs $50,000 to film. You spend it, you film it, and send it off to post, but the movie is too long and the scene is deemed unnecessary so it gets cut. That's a sunk cost since there's no getting it back, but it wasn't planned that way and that's the point that you seem to have trouble grasping. If you were to plan to put $50,000 into a scene that movie theaters could choose not to show from the get-go, that wouldn't be efficient because that same money could be used to improve other aspects of the film that are guaranteed to be seen by all audience members. It'd be more efficient to drop something that people might not see in favor of what the audience is guaranteed to see. Once again, I'm talking about things in the planning stage and not after-the-fact.

I acknowledge your expertise when it comes to the production of traditional media, but in this case I don't think it's analogous.

In your example, if the scene gets cut then you derive no benefit from having filmed it. You would have been better off not to have filmed it.

But in the game, the scene never gets cut. It does get used, so there was never any option not to include it. The only difference is in whether a given player sees it (the vast majority of players will), and the devs derive no benefit from me experiencing their content. That's like saying I've somehow disadvantaged them if I buy the game but don't play it.

Your argument would apply just as well to branching content, where there might be whole areas or questlines that go unseen by some players. Are you arguing against those, too?

Look Slyvius, I respect you because your opinions are usually well-worded and more intelligent than most. You're one of the few members on this forum that is like a familiar face to someone like myself, who has been frequenting the Bioware forums for the last decade. People potentially not hearing something that you spent 2/3 of your budget on is a waste because the option to use it more effectively was there. Yes, people buy the game and it all gets paid for in the end, but that's 2/3 of the budget that could've been used to add in more NPC conversations, more side quests, and more companion interactions. This goes double when you account for the fact that most video games have something called a "word budget," which I'll openly admit I don't know much about. However, you have to be clever and efficient when you plan out how to use your resources. Of course there's no guarantee that things will go according to plan, but that's why you plan to be as efficient as possible.

Your post is clear and informative. I just don't think it applies to content you don't have the option not to produce.

[Pasquale1234]

I do actually, but your stance seems to be stemming from the idea that the toggle would be made after the voice over had been done.  You can't get money back after its been spent, but planning for such a large amount to be potentially and purposely wasted is something that would and should get you fired.  Designing it that way from the ground up makes no sense.  If you have a voice-over budget of $100,000 and $66,000 goes to recording dialogue that may not be heard at all, that is ludicrous.

Yet that is the very nature of these games as we know them. Every time you see the dialogue wheel, there are multiple options available that you will not use in any given playthrough. If there is an average of 4 different options each time the dialogue wheel appears, you will experience only 25% of that content on your playthrough.

In any given playthrough, Shepard can be one gender, one class, and romance no more than one of the available LIs. These games have loads of optional side content available. ME3 went so far as to provide replacements for plot-relevant characters who may have died along the way.

[In Exile]

Yet that is the very nature of these games as we know them. Every time you see the dialogue wheel, there are multiple options available that you will not use in any given playthrough. If there is an average of 4 different options each time the dialogue wheel appears, you will experience only 25% of that content on your playthrough.

In any given playthrough, Shepard can be one gender, one class, and romance no more than one of the available LIs. These games have loads of optional side content available. ME3 went so far as to provide replacements for plot-relevant characters who may have died along the way.

That's not the same at all. Not everyone will see all content in a game - in fact, most people won't see an ending (and some people buy games without playing them!). There's a difference between choosing to invest resources to polish the early part of a game that everyone will see (the rationale in the post you're responding to) and simply just not having an ending (the interpretive position you're taking here).

Put a different way - there is a huge difference between the cost of actually designing, scripting and planning content and the fact that 100% of the audience won't see 100% of the content.