Protagonist: Silent vs Voiced

[DeadPoolX]

The debate between those who like a silent protagonist versus those who prefer a voiced protagonist is huge issue on the BioWare Social Network (BSN), with the two camps evenly divided. It doesn't really matter because BioWare has stated -- numerous times -- that DA3 will be fully voiced, like the ME series and DA2.

Regardless, I'm interested in knowing how you guys feel. Do you have a specific preference? If so, why?

I know where I stand, but I'd like to hear some opinions first.

[Maxor127]

I prefer silent. I'd rather fill in my own voice and personality. I prefer a list of dialog options too, instead of a conversation wheel. I can see how a voiced protagonist is almost required with the vague options in the wheel. I guess Dragon Age 3 will be like Dragon Age 2, then. I don't mind sci-fi games tying me to a specific character, but fantasy RPGs were born from D&D, so I expect lots of choice. Bioware games are starting to feel like interactive movies. The story and dialog are good for the most part, but the actual gameplay is becoming tedious and just filler.

[Collector]

I think that it in large part depends on the game itself. A good Noir game almost demands it because of its tradition in Noir films. That said, in general, I would prefer it not top be.

[Datadog]

I prefer a voiced character. In games like DA and KotOR, I feel very disconnected from my character when they don't have a voice or mannerisms of their own. It's also very disconcerting for me when a conversation is going on and I only ever hear one person talking. I think it's why I end up clicking through most of the dialogue in DA. Even in games like QFG, I have a difficult time with the conversations when I don't feel like the main character is invested enough in it.

Not that I'm saying voices are necessary. Even in older voice-less games (i.e. Secret of Monkey Island), I felt better connected to my character when I could see that he was physically talking and not just standing there while I clicked through dialogue options.

[DeadPoolX]

I agree with Datadog.

Nothing breaks my immersion in the game world more than seeing my character barely respond to external stimuli. When he does, he'll emote with some sort of ridiculously stupid expression.

I don't understand how some people say you have fewer options when roleplaying with a voiced character. The only choices you get are those that've been programmed into the game.

Now if you're playing a tabletop PnP game, that's one thing. Humans can change when needed, but a machine only does what its code tells it to do.

[Maxor127]

By fewer choices I mean you'll normally be restricted by what race you play or even what class or sex. When you're silent, it's easier to give lots of options for customization. When I play a silent character, I feel like I'm the one who is playing and involved in the adventure. When I'm a voiced character, it's pretty much like watching a movie. I'm watching someone else do something and I'm just guiding them along the way. It's like playing as someone else's character instead of my own. The voice usually doesn't match what I'd like. If I'm lucky I can change how they look or their class. Freedom is most important for me in an RPG.

I'm specifically talking about RPG. For adventure games or action adventures, I don't mind voiced characters because those games are expected to be linear. And I don't expect to have much influence on the story besides getting from point A to point B. But if the voice acting is bad or not how I imagined, that can take me out of it.

For pure shooters, it's a tough call. Usually the dialog is cheesy and the story is flimsy or pretentious. It's rare for me to care about the story of a shooter anymore.

[Collector]

By Silent vs Voiced I took it that you were talking about the protagonist also being a narrator. If all you are talking about is dialog, then of course he should speak. But then, that is my adventure roots showing.

[DeadPoolX]

By fewer choices I mean you'll normally be restricted by what race you play or even what class or sex. When you're silent, it's easier to give lots of options for customization. When I play a silent character, I feel like I'm the one who is playing and involved in the adventure. When I'm a voiced character, it's pretty much like watching a movie. I'm watching someone else do something and I'm just guiding them along the way. It's like playing as someone else's character instead of my own. The voice usually doesn't match what I'd like. If I'm lucky I can change how they look or their class. Freedom is most important for me in an RPG.

I understand your POV and I agree that customization can be easier with a silent protagonist. It'd be very costly, for instance, to hire multiple voice actors to do different races.

However, I feel like the voiced protagonist gives the character more of an interactive personality. It's weird to see your character just stand there like a mannequin, showing off a rare smile or frown every so often, when everyone else is audibly speaking.

The only time I'm okay with a silent protagonist is if the game is played from a first-person perspective, like Fallout 3. I don't see my character acting like a lifeless doll nor do I have to look at their weird emotes. In addition, if you really want to play as the character, you should see through the character's eyes, not from some invisible camera off to the side.

By Silent vs Voiced I took it that you were talking about the protagonist also being a narrator. If all you are talking about is dialog, then of course he should speak. But then, that is my adventure roots showing.

Yeah, I guess I should've clarified. I meant dialogue, not narration.

I was referring more to RPGs, specifically BioWare's games. In those you don't have a narrator (with the possible exception of Varric in DA2, but he narrated between Acts, not during actual gameplay).

[AndreaDraco]

While I've enjoyed both silent protagonists (DA, KotOR, JE) and voiced ones (ME2), my personal preference is for a character whose voice I can imagine in my own head. It is a matter of roleplaying. Of being able to decide which tone he's using, how fast he talks, how he gesticulates to underscore his words, etc. A silent protagonist usually feels more like my character, and not just a character I'm playing. For example, while I like the ability to shape his personality, at least a bit, I don't feel a very strong connection with Shepard, unlike my Warden, even if he never uttered a word. However, if the writing is good enough, and the dialogue options are well thought-out, a voiced protagonist isn't an hindrance.

[DeadPoolX]

You see, my issue with a silent protagonist (aside from the odd facial expressions) is that whatever vocal tone you've imagined can be immediately wiped out by an NPC's response.

If you assumed your comment would be taken as a witty joke or a tactful assist, the NPC may react as if you insulted them. Why? Because that's what the writers intended the tone of your comment to be.

Sure, some people might claim it's all a "misunderstanding" and "that happens in real life" but the big difference is in real life you can explain yourself. You don't get that chance in a game, so whether it's a misunderstanding or not, the fact remains the NPC acts as if you said something different.

I think roleplaying where you're the character himself is best kept to tabletop PnP games. There's far more room for choice, freedom and interaction. If something seems amiss, you can discuss it with the other players and the DM. You're not confined by a game's set parameters and programming.

In contrast, I feel that roleplaying a pre-made character, like Adam Jensen (or somewhat pre-made, such as the case with Shepard and Hawke) is better suited toward the cinematic approach of a video game.

That said, if the story is good and the characters are fleshed out, a silent protagonist probably wouldn't be enough to keep me from playing (and hopefully enjoying) the game. I just prefer being able to hear my character's voice, especially when everyone else can speak.

[Datadog]

Sure, some people might claim it's all a "misunderstanding" and "that happens in real life" but the big difference is in real life you can explain yourself. You don't get that chance in a game, so whether it's a misunderstanding or not, the fact remains the NPC acts as if you said something different.

This was a recurring problem I had with playing "Fallout 3". Almost all the dialogue in the conversation options was written in a way that could be misinterpreted by the player as sarcasm or playful banter. So whenever I clicked something I thought might be fun, every NPC would react in the most black-or-white way possible, as if subtext didn't exist in their world.

I suppose conversation trees with a silent protagonist are more appropriate if you're the kind of player who favors directly dealing in information. Personally, I prefer watching the characters react to each other and letting subtext tell the story, so a conversation wheel with a voiced protagonist is more ideal.

[Maiandra]

For RPGs, I'm a little on the fence about this one, leaning slightly towards voiced, just because I've seen it better implemented.

If they could have the character unvoiced and it didn't break the immersion or make the dialogues seem lacking, I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, I felt they were lacking DA:O, because just having facial expressions where it would be more natural to say something didn't cut it for me. It would almost have been better if they hadn't even shown the face at all and instead focused on actions and the reactions of others. The notable lack of vocalising ruined the immersion.

On the other hand, I feel that in a computer game, which is a multimedia, interactive experience, I shouldn't have to imagine the events happening in my head (at least not in this decade). At the same time, if they make too many assumptions about your character and the cut-scenes are too long, it doesn't feel interactive enough either.

It's a fine line and I don't think BioWare has quite found the balance yet. That said, their games have a better narrative than most games out there today and I still enjoy them a great deal.

[Rath Darkblade]

I prefer silent over voiced, mostly because I prefer DA:O over DA2 (and, of course, I'm an old-schooler from waaaay back when no-one spoke at all!) Then again, I don't think it was just the voiced protagonist that ruined DA2. A lot of other things contributed: the repetitive dungeons, the complete disintegration of Anders' character, and the unrealistic fight scenes (and suddenly, another fifty BAZILLION Dark Followers of the Sect of Whatever jump out at you). But that's just me. *shrug*

[MusicallyInspired]

I like them both and both can be used well in different scenarios. I don't prefer one over the other.

[Maxor127]

I didn't have a problem with how they did Dragon Age Origins. From what I remember, it's no different than how they handled any previous Bioware game except Mass Effect. I've never had a problem with silent protagonists, but there have been several times where voiced protagonists annoyed me. In Origins, I felt much more involved in the story than I did in Dragon Age 2. And I think it's a waste of time to hear a protagonist repeat what I want them to say. I've played games all my life, and I never once thought how I wish I could hear my character carry on a conversation with someone and make me feel like an observer rather than a participant.