Silent protagonist

[Zapgrind.2197]

The amount of time I was disconnected from my character (any of them) during the story is uncalculable at this point. I get it, having various voice lines cost money, but you haven't written the commander nearly as "neutral" as they should be in order for voicing to work. Please return to vanilla text based dialogues with dignity/ferocity/charm, or better yet just cut commander's tongue out completely. You've alredy took away their balls anyway.

[ugrakarma.9416]

precisely sir.

[AlPower.2476]

I mean, yeah we have a lack of mc dialog; probly 'cause they have to use 10 kind of different voices for it.

But comming back to a completely text based dialogs sounds worst (as for me, at least)

 

[Shaman.2034]

The more that the player character becomes a specific character with a specific personality, the less immersive and interesting the story becomes. Look at FFXIV, it can have a voiced story with a silent and personality-less protagonist. The GW2 player character shouldn't have ever had any dialogue to begin with. I don't play an MMORPG to be assigned a character to play as; I play an MMORPG to design my own characters.

At this point I hardly pay attention to any dialogue in the story unless it's directly relevant to parts of the lore I'm interested in. The rest of the time I just goof off while waiting for people to stop chatting so I can nuke the pop-up enemies and get on with it.

To make matters worse, it has been infecting open world PvE, but especially badly with SotO, where Peitha and others can randomly whisper you just by being near an event or location. Keep the story in the story. I am not the Commander or the Wayfinder that you're trying to force me to be.

[Zapgrind.2197]

17 hours ago, Shaman.2034 said:

The more that the player character becomes a specific character with a specific personality, the less immersive and interesting the story becomes.

...

Precisely. I have generally no problems with VA for my character, if it's neutral. No feelies, no emotions (aside from basic ones), or at least if I can choose. Thank you very much, I don't need someone else to decide how my characters are reacting to things, I can do it pretty much myself. And I specifically don't need someone to self-insert as my character. Not saying that's the case, but very well may be. 

It's been days now since I've done Gyala Delve story, and I'm still triggered lol. Such a miserable expirience. 

 

Edited March 4 by Zapgrind.2197

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

they wrote the commander and the other npcs very neutral in the personal story and the first few seasons of living world, however this was widely panned. players found all dialogue to be extremely bland, and felt like the commander had no personality whatsoever.

 

i feel like this is why they switched from world-based building to character-based sometime around heart of thorns.

Edited March 4 by SoftFootpaws.9134

[Blur.3465]

I would love if we could choose the lines we say.
I understand it would cost more, but it would definitely help us choose our 'personality' and the way we respond to certain situation.
And each of the offered choices could be tied to the charisma, ferocity, dignity etc. 

My character is based around dignity as he's a noble coming from Divinity's Reach, so naturally I'd want him to respond wisely and with some majestic and dignified vibe. Instead most of the lines he says are...bland and ugh... well. Yeah.
Part of it comes from the voice too. Nothing against the male human VA but it really fits the vibe of a scoundrel instead. Human male VA was amazing as Prince of Persia and fits that vibe 100% even when I play my thief in GW2. But it's -definitely- the wrong voice for my noble who is based around Phantom of the Opera.

Which is why, as OP said, maybe removing the voice from commander and offering us choices through responses would be best?

[Randulf.7614]

24 minutes ago, Blur.3465 said:

My character is based around dignity as he's a noble coming from Divinity's Reach, so naturally I'd want him to respond wisely and with some majestic and dignified vibe. Instead most of the lines he says are...bland and ugh... well. Yeah.
Part of it comes from the voice too. Nothing against the male human VA but it really fits the vibe of a scoundrel instead. Human male VA was amazing as Prince of Persia and fits that vibe 100% even when I play my thief in GW2. But it's -definitely- the wrong voice for my noble who is based around Phantom of the Opera.
 

Interesting, because I find the human male VA perfectly fits my wise, dignified Noble. But completely misfits my more rogueish characters. In fact it fits him better than any other VA fits any of my other characters

I don't think whatever they do, they can ever get it right. Which is why they got it so spectacularly wrong during the Gyala Delves debacle by trying to force something on our character.

Stepping back and focusing the story on the NPCs is not something I have an issue with, although reducing the VA too much risks going too far in the other direction. I thought the balance was struck in the first part of SoTo, but not so much this episode

[Danikat.8537]

There's no way to get it right for everyone. I know the idea behind a silent protagonist (which doesn't just mean no voice acting - it means no dialogue, including written) is that they can work as a self-insertion character because they'll have no personality of their own, but it rarely works that way because their body language, facial expressions (or lack thereof) and most importantly their actions will still define their personality. Link from the Legend of Zelda games is a perfect example. The guy has had a handful of lines over 20+ games (mostly things like "Come on!" and "I found a mirror under the table") but still has his own identity and personality.

It also doesn't work as a self-insertion character for everyone, for the same reason. My first ever Zelda game was Link's Awakening and a friend told me to put my name in and pretend it was me in the game, then 'I' was told to walk unarmed across a monster-infested beach, pick up a sword and fight my way back so I could fight even more dangerous monsters somewhere else. At that point I decided this wasn't going to work, whoever this person is they're clearly not me because there's no way I'd ever do that, so I restarted using the name Link since that's what was on the box. I've used much the same logic in every RPG I've played - my character can't be me because if they were they'd stay in town where it's safe and none of this would happen to them. After that it doesn't matter if the dialogue doesn't fit me, because they're not me.

Which isn't to say I never get frustrated with dialogue in games, but it's more because I have to assume every RPG character I make is very impulsive and a bit of an idiot because they'll repeatedly go along with what they're told instead of saying "This is a trap, right? I mean you're obviously lying to me, so why not just tell me what's actually going on and we'll go from there" or whatever. Also they can't talk back to people who make condescending comments about adventurers not understanding things like books and scrolls can be valuable, even if my character is a wizard or part of some group like the Priory in GW2 who obviously would understand that.

I also know people who see silent protagonists as the absolute worst example of lazy writing and refuse to play games that do that.

In this case I think it would also be pretty jarring to suddenly switch to a silent protagonist 11 years in, after many stories where our characters clearly have a defined personality and feelings on various topics. I think the inconsistency would bother me more than having to adjust my character concepts to fit how I know they're going to act in the story.

[Zapgrind.2197]

There's no way to get it right for everyone, indeed, but there are ways to make it appropriate for the genre. "Commander Shepard" is appropriate for a single-player game, but even in those games options for some RP are given aswell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but GW2 is not a single-player game or some hero-shooter. It's an MMORPG, where thousands of players can create characters with completely different backgrounds. Forcing them all to have a single distinct personality is just... wrong. That's why people are usually making the protagonist of an MMO silent or have them react just average for their race and/or profession. And also that's why if you want to tell the story about personal trauma, you make it around NPCs.

Anet used to know how to do that.

[ugrakarma.9416]

Dragon Age Inquisition worked that way you dont have much to say, while everyone else talks a lot.

The main problem i think is because at some point youre "important person" a "leader", and having nothing to say, then you become have some 'feeling' that something weird is going on..

[Shaman.2034]

On 3/5/2024 at 9:38 AM, Danikat.8537 said:

In this case I think it would also be pretty jarring to suddenly switch to a silent protagonist 11 years in

I agree that GW2 would never work with a silent protagonist - it never had one to begin with. You were always fully voiced and assigned a character to play in the story.

However, what I think could be viable is for them to tone down the number of spontaneous character interactions in the open world zones. And I don't mean story steps that take place in the open world - I mean the random dialogue thrown at the Commander/Wayfinder whenever you're not doing any story. The main problem is that you cannot reconcile the Commander/Wayfinder against any multiplayer content. You can't have all 90 players in the zone be the Commander, there is only 1 Commander. And statistically, it's not you. Ideally, all references to the Commander in open world would be toward a third person. Lines like, "Hopefully the Commander shows up to help out, but we'll take all the help we can get!"

But this is not a new thing; it was first started in HoT where NPCs started shouting stuff like, "Commander, over here!" Mostly short phrases. These were annoying at first, but I've learned to ignore them, because they aren't very substantial. But they've become increasingly invasive over time, and in SotO it is just too much. You can't go anywhere without Peitha chiming in with a whole monologue to remind you that she's half-possessing you the entire time you're in the zone.

"MMM. THESE... FRACTALS... AS YOU CALL THEM... CURIOUS THINGS... I'VE SEEN THEM BEFORE, IN THE MISTS... ONES THAT... FORM ON THEIR OWN... THEY DON'T ONLY TELL STORIES OF YOUR WORLD... I FEEL THEIR FEAR... I FEEL... SYMPATHY... FOR THEM."

Some Astral Ward NPC will say something as part of an event, and Peitha will jump into your head with a response, like "WOW... YOUR PEOPLE ARE KINDA DUMB... AND CLOSE-MINDED..." Like, thanks, but I didn't ask. Also I'm not the Wayfinder right now, I'm a nameless mercenary helping 99 other nameless mercenaries take down a worldly threat.

It isn't just Peitha that does this, but her monologues are the worst because her voice is so loud, slow, and bass boosted. And you get the whisper pings like a real player is trying to whisper you.

I would rather that open world NPC call-outs are all vague, like when Vanak Faithwalker (Amnytas) calls out for help with, "I need any Ward in the area on my position, now! I have a plan, but I need help!"

TL;DR: More separation between open world PvE and story dialogue. Treat me like a random mercenary in open world. Treat me like the Commander/Wayfinder during the story.

[Randulf.7614]

Season 2 did a fully text based dialogue for the PC. I'm not sure I want to return to that. I didn't hate it at the time, but it's jarring going back to it

[Kalavier.1097]

2 hours ago, Shaman.2034 said:

However, what I think could be viable is for them to tone down the number of spontaneous character interactions in the open world zones. And I don't mean story steps that take place in the open world - I mean the random dialogue thrown at the Commander/Wayfinder whenever you're not doing any story. The main problem is that you cannot reconcile the Commander/Wayfinder against any multiplayer content. You can't have all 90 players in the zone be the Commander, there is only 1 Commander. And statistically, it's not you. Ideally, all references to the Commander in open world would be toward a third person. Lines like, "Hopefully the Commander shows up to help out, but we'll take all the help we can get!"

It's rather easy to reconcile that in terms of storytelling.

You are the commander, all others are adventurers/mercs/part of the Pact or Astral Ward or whatever faction. They have it so only your character talks (if anybody does) and not other players. 

IE. go into dragonstorm. Only your PC and the npcs talk despite there being 50 people there. That is because there is only one commander. 

As for that last, they actually did that in the Zephyrite town. An NPC comments to you about how there are rumors the commander will be present, and wonder if they'll see them.

[Shaman.2034]

Just now, Kalavier.1097 said:

It's rather easy to reconcile that in terms of storytelling.

You are the commander, all others are adventurers/mercs/part of the Pact or Astral Ward or whatever faction. They have it so only your character talks (if anybody does) and not other players. 

IE. go into dragonstorm. Only your PC and the npcs talk despite there being 50 people there. That is because there is only one commander. 

That's a rather self-centered viewpoint. This is not a single-player game. I don't view myself to be the center of the show where all other players are random mercenaries. That's neither immersive nor conducive toward social interactions with other players. And it's impossible to separate the knowledge that every other player is also simultaneously receiving identical dialogue.

There is no line between me and other players, there's just us. We're doing this thing, together, and I'm not the most special hero out of them. I'm the same as anyone else. Modern meta-events literally cannot be solo'd or even carried by one player, so there's also no gameplay justification for reconciling this.

The closest (but still very weak) point of reconciliation is that a player may create a squad and become the commander of that squad, and so perhaps they are acting as the canon Commander for the duration of the meta-event - but the NPCs still talk to everyone equally regardless of their role within the squad. And multiple squads very often exist simultaneously in order to coordinate different areas of the meta-event, which just means there are multiple Commanders again.

[Kalavier.1097]

9 minutes ago, Shaman.2034 said:

That's a rather self-centered viewpoint. This is not a single-player game. I don't view myself to be the center of the show where all other players are random mercenaries. That's neither immersive nor conducive toward social interactions with other players. And it's impossible to separate the knowledge that every other player is also simultaneously receiving identical dialogue.

There is no line between me and other players, there's just us. We're doing this thing, together, and I'm not the most special hero out of them. I'm the same as anyone else. Modern meta-events literally cannot be solo'd or even carried by one player, so there's also no gameplay justification for reconciling this.

The closest (but still very weak) point of reconciliation is that a player may create a squad and become the commander of that squad, and so perhaps they are acting as the canon Commander for the duration of the meta-event - but the NPCs still talk to everyone equally regardless of their role within the squad. And multiple squads very often exist simultaneously in order to coordinate different areas of the meta-event, which just means there are multiple Commanders again.

You are over-thinking it, I believe.

The commander has never been a one-man army in the lore, often acting in concert with entire groups or armies. See Mouth of Modremoth being fought and killed at the same time the commander was inside the tree trying to free Trahearne. Famously, the commander has a low success record when trying to completely solo big bads and other foes.

This is an MMO, with a storyline and major characters. However, unlike other games which blare out voice lines for every single person to hear, GW2 specifically limits and ensures that you never hear another player character respond to an NPC during an event. As far as the world is concerned, when you are playing, your character logged in is the commander, going through there events, metas, fractals, or story instances. Other people are present and very much involved, but they aren't the commander in the storyline.

It's not being self-centered, it's looking at how the story is actually written for GW2 and how it is presented. They have never alluded to multiple "Commanders" at any phase. It means that if you want to consider yourself the big hero, you got it. If you want to see your character as part of the horde, you equally can.

[Shaman.2034]

3 minutes ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

GW2 specifically limits and ensures that you never hear another player character respond to an NPC during an event. As far as the world is concerned, when you are playing, your character logged in is the commander, going through there events, metas, fractals, or story instances. Other people are present and very much involved, but they aren't the commander in the storyline.

I don't see how you draw that conclusion. They are all the Commander in the storyline, because they are responding too, whether it's shown to me or not. It doesn't need to be shown, I know it's happening.

I think that you're speaking along the idea that every player is playing in their own phased version of reality in which they are the canon Commander and everyone else around them is just someone else. So when there are 99 players together, there are 99 separate realities taking place concurrently. This is over-thinking it. There is only 1 reality that everyone experiences together. It is impossible to reconcile a single instance of reality with the fact that all 99 players are addressed as the Commander. But it is also just as impossible for there to be 99 separate realities.

9 minutes ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

It means that if you want to consider yourself the big hero, you got it. If you want to see your character as part of the horde, you equally can.

But my entire issue is that you can't see your character as part of the horde, because you are constantly addressed as the Commander, even outside of the story. I want ArenaNet to design open world zones that do let you see your character as part of the horde.

[Danikat.8537]

Important note: The Pact has more than one commander. It's one of the top ranks but not completely unique, kind of like generals in real life. I think that's one of the reasons the player character wasn't put in charge - if you've been playing through the story with 1 - 4 other people you can all become commanders instead of one person being singled out. Although the other reason is that, just like real life militaries, the person in charge does very little actual fighting so it wouldn't work with the game mechanics. While you're playing an RPG Traherene is playing an RTS - taking a back seat to direct everything rather than fighting on the front lines.

But whether it's NPCs or other players the player character's rank has never been unique. For example in Orr when you have to choose between the Priory, Whispers or Vigil plan you're told all 3 will go ahead, you're only choosing which one you'll be involved with and someone else oversees the other two.

But there are also times when we get to be in two places at once - like doing the story side of the assult on Mordremoth inside his mind and the meta-event battle against his body. The canon version is that the player character wasn't in the meta event battle (and if I remember correctly no one calls you Commander during it), so for those sections you're just another soldier.

[Shaman.2034]

Just now, Danikat.8537 said:

if you've been playing through the story with 1 - 4 other people you can all become commanders instead of one person being singled out

So actually, if you play the story with other people, only the instance owner performs the Commander's dialogue, and all other players hear it from that player's character. And only their name shows up in the chat log, etc. It's handled quite well. I prefer to play the story with my partner as the instance owner, so they are the Commander and I'm just their nameless assistant.

2 minutes ago, Danikat.8537 said:

But there are also times when we get to be in two places at once - like doing the story side of the assult on Mordremoth inside his mind and the meta-event battle against his body. The canon version is that the player character wasn't in the meta event battle (and if I remember correctly no one calls you Commander during it), so for those sections you're just another soldier.

Yes, and what I'm saying is that all open world meta events should be like that! It's how massively-multiplayer content storytelling should be done.

[Shaman.2034]

But like, I genuinely don't understand how one can imagine oneself to be the Commander and all other players are not the Commander at the same time. There are no paths that lead to that conclusion for me. It's trivially obvious that everyone receives identical dialogue during open world events - I do not have the unique special edition Commander's copy of the game, after all. Then, in the simplest case, the game is telling everyone that they are all the Commander. It's not overthinking it, I might be underthinking it. I feel like I'm saying that 0 = 0, it's just the most trivial consequence of giving everyone the same game copy and then putting them together in multiplayer content.

If one imagines that all other players are not the Commander, that's an extra step one has to take, which necessarily makes it a more complex idea. That is a (valid, but yet) imaginary construction which differs from what's actually happening, and needs constant maintenance to preserve the illusion. That feels like overthinking it, to me. I would need to constantly put in work to maintain the fantasy that only I am the Commander, when I know as a trivial fact that everyone is told they're the Commander.

Edited March 7 by Shaman.2034

[Randulf.7614]

8 hours ago, Shaman.2034 said:

But like, I genuinely don't understand how one can imagine oneself to be the Commander and all other players are not the Commander at the same time.

I think there’s a dev statement that backs it up, but I’m sure someone can recall the exact quote they made years ago about it to clarify 

[Urud.4925]

I also feel very disconnected from the Commander in this expansion, but for this very reason I would find a silent Commander even worse. When I play FF14, I have the feeling that the devs expect me to dub my character, for role playing. The problem is that I don't like the main character, so for me it's just a person who cannot speak, and feels even more disconnected from the rest of the NPCs. If it's dubbed, I can at least listen to the dialogues as a story that doesn't really affect me, like watching a mediocre movie. In this last chapter we are already quite ignored, like when it says "speak to Peitha" and she talks to the General (at the end), or Ramses and Arina talks to you instead (at the beginning).

[Kalavier.1097]

12 hours ago, Danikat.8537 said:

Important note: The Pact has more than one commander. It's one of the top ranks but not completely unique, kind of like generals in real life. I think that's one of the reasons the player character wasn't put in charge - if you've been playing through the story with 1 - 4 other people you can all become commanders instead of one person being singled out. Although the other reason is that, just like real life militaries, the person in charge does very little actual fighting so it wouldn't work with the game mechanics. While you're playing an RPG Traherene is playing an RTS - taking a back seat to direct everything rather than fighting on the front lines.

But whether it's NPCs or other players the player character's rank has never been unique. For example in Orr when you have to choose between the Priory, Whispers or Vigil plan you're told all 3 will go ahead, you're only choosing which one you'll be involved with and someone else oversees the other two.

But there are also times when we get to be in two places at once - like doing the story side of the assult on Mordremoth inside his mind and the meta-event battle against his body. The canon version is that the player character wasn't in the meta event battle (and if I remember correctly no one calls you Commander during it), so for those sections you're just another soldier.

This is true. Almorra does say the title/rank is good for life though with the Commander, whether they go solo or not. And yep, all PS arcs are treated as having happened, even if you didn't do them.

12 hours ago, Shaman.2034 said:

I don't see how you draw that conclusion. They are all the Commander in the storyline, because they are responding too, whether it's shown to me or not. It doesn't need to be shown, I know it's happening.

I think that you're speaking along the idea that every player is playing in their own phased version of reality in which they are the canon Commander and everyone else around them is just someone else. So when there are 99 players together, there are 99 separate realities taking place concurrently. This is over-thinking it. There is only 1 reality that everyone experiences together. It is impossible to reconcile a single instance of reality with the fact that all 99 players are addressed as the Commander. But it is also just as impossible for there to be 99 separate realities.

But my entire issue is that you can't see your character as part of the horde, because you are constantly addressed as the Commander, even outside of the story. I want ArenaNet to design open world zones that do let you see your character as part of the horde.

The game explicitly does not show or treat any other PC as "The main character commander." The fact you are thinking about what all the other players are hearing is something more on your side then the game. For example, in Bjora Marches when Braham is tagging along with you, No other player has him by their side. Ingame any player on that story step has either nobody around them or just a raven flying nearby, but there is no indication at all they have him alongside him. This is true for all following npcs during open world parts as far as I know.  GW2 has been written and designed so that you don't have cases like that old WoW situation where every player heres lines about how every single person is the main character/important, like that Viva La Dirt league video where three players all witness an npc giving the same heartfelt farewell.  Instead, the game never acknowledges another player as "The commander" when you are playing it. Hell, we've had 3 completely different commander characters in trailers, two of which became named npcs hanging out around Dragon Bash (and I think one or two other places). 

I'm not saying there are 100 different realities (though Anet used to float such a theory long ago lol, before WvW's lore got revamped) but instead that "The commander" as it is, is Anet's character. There is no defined commander so that when everybody plays, they each get that experience. There is only one Commander character in reality, and the actual appearance/class can be anything. I'm approaching the game exactly as it's presented.

To the last part, my personal characters are not related to the Commander in any way, shape, or form. Infact I hold a healthy separation of the two. While I play everything on my human noble necro, if you asked me what "My character" was, I'd reply a teacher of necromancy, member of the Priory, and one who has never been into the deep Maguuma or many places in the world.

12 hours ago, Shaman.2034 said:

But like, I genuinely don't understand how one can imagine oneself to be the Commander and all other players are not the Commander at the same time. There are no paths that lead to that conclusion for me. It's trivially obvious that everyone receives identical dialogue during open world events - I do not have the unique special edition Commander's copy of the game, after all. Then, in the simplest case, the game is telling everyone that they are all the Commander. It's not overthinking it, I might be underthinking it. I feel like I'm saying that 0 = 0, it's just the most trivial consequence of giving everyone the same game copy and then putting them together in multiplayer content.

If one imagines that all other players are not the Commander, that's an extra step one has to take, which necessarily makes it a more complex idea. That is a (valid, but yet) imaginary construction which differs from what's actually happening, and needs constant maintenance to preserve the illusion. That feels like overthinking it, to me. I would need to constantly put in work to maintain the fantasy that only I am the Commander, when I know as a trivial fact that everyone is told they're the Commander.

As said before, in complete honesty I feel that constantly thinking about how everybody else is also treated as the commander is many extra steps away from all story content (episodes, events, metas, etc). The game never makes me think about such thing, and the commander is a nebulous blob.  There have been a few official "Commanders" in trailers who turned into npcs, and it's up to Anet to decide what happens. Much like how in GW1, the actual "Hero" of each campaign is... blank. We don't know their official class, gender, name. 

[Danikat.8537]

20 hours ago, Shaman.2034 said:

But like, I genuinely don't understand how one can imagine oneself to be the Commander and all other players are not the Commander at the same time. There are no paths that lead to that conclusion for me. It's trivially obvious that everyone receives identical dialogue during open world events - I do not have the unique special edition Commander's copy of the game, after all. Then, in the simplest case, the game is telling everyone that they are all the Commander. It's not overthinking it, I might be underthinking it. I feel like I'm saying that 0 = 0, it's just the most trivial consequence of giving everyone the same game copy and then putting them together in multiplayer content.

If one imagines that all other players are not the Commander, that's an extra step one has to take, which necessarily makes it a more complex idea. That is a (valid, but yet) imaginary construction which differs from what's actually happening, and needs constant maintenance to preserve the illusion. That feels like overthinking it, to me. I would need to constantly put in work to maintain the fantasy that only I am the Commander, when I know as a trivial fact that everyone is told they're the Commander.

Do you have more than one character? How do you reconcile them having the same story, often with the same dialogue?

I'm genuinely surprised this is a problem for you but not all kinds of other things in the game (and other games) like events repeating, visiting maps 'out of order' (like going to ones where the Pact hasn't been formed after doing the Battle of Fort Trinity). In my experience all RPGs require some degree of using your imagination and suspension of disbelief because it's never going to all fit perfectly.

[Kalavier.1097]

52 minutes ago, Danikat.8537 said:

Do you have more than one character? How do you reconcile them having the same story, often with the same dialogue?

I'm genuinely surprised this is a problem for you but not all kinds of other things in the game (and other games) like events repeating, visiting maps 'out of order' (like going to ones where the Pact hasn't been formed after doing the Battle of Fort Trinity). In my experience all RPGs require some degree of using your imagination and suspension of disbelief because it's never going to all fit perfectly.

This is another thing. Meta events happen once (unless explicitly stated otherwise). World bosses get killed and are dead for good in the lore. Event chains happen once in the story.