In the "Avatar Usage" article the following is written:

• Player’s avatar talks

The player’s avatar should not have their own voice. They are allowed to make individual sounds, such as laughing and crying but otherwise cannot use a voice

I understand making an avatar talk using voice acting is not allowed, but (as far as I can tell) the rules do not specify if we are allowed to make the player's avatar talk via text (such as talk balloons).  The rules only seem to say that we cannot give the avatar a voice, but I would like this cleared up so there's no argument when Peer Review time comes.

You cannot control the avatar, only the player can since the avatar is supposed to be the player. If the game displays the talk balloon with no input from the player, I would say it falls under the controlling the avatar rule and should not be allowed.

Like Jim said. It would be prohibited under the following rule

• Player interacts with their avatar as if it’s a separate character

A player’s avatar does not have an autonomous personality or instinct.  The avatar is under the control of the owning player. It can have idle animations and can respond appropriately to game events but it should not interact with the user as if it is separate from the player, try to get the player’s attention in an annoying manner

It would acceptable to choose what the Avatar should say and have that be displayed. Avatars are not Mr Clippy :)

Pigyman:

In the "Avatar Usage" article the following is written:

• Player’s avatar talks

The player’s avatar should not have their own voice. They are allowed to make individual sounds, such as laughing and crying but otherwise cannot use a voice

I understand making an avatar talk using voice acting is not allowed, but (as far as I can tell) the rules do not specify if we are allowed to make the player's avatar talk via text (such as talk balloons).  The rules only seem to say that we cannot give the avatar a voice, but I would like this cleared up so there's no argument when Peer Review time comes.

I would like to clarify this, just to keep it in everyone's mind:
This rule is for the PLAYER'S avatar, not avatar's in general.  Giving NPC avatars text and even voice should not be a problem by the rules.

SRH:

I would like to clarify this, just to keep it in everyone's mind:
This rule is for the PLAYER'S avatar, not avatar's in general.  Giving NPC avatars text and even voice should not be a problem by the rules.

Yes thats how we all understand the rules right now. Remember no avatar games have been through peer review yet, though I suspect there will be some people determined to try to find the limits. Personally I would just play everything safe for your first game

Thanks, guys.  The last thing I want to do is completely rewrite my game because of a misinterpreted avatar rule.  This helps a lot.

The ZMan:

SRH:

I would like to clarify this, just to keep it in everyone's mind:
This rule is for the PLAYER'S avatar, not avatar's in general.  Giving NPC avatars text and even voice should not be a problem by the rules.

Yes thats how we all understand the rules right now. Remember no avatar games have been through peer review yet, though I suspect there will be some people determined to try to find the limits. Personally I would just play everything safe for your first game

Yep this rule is one that only applies to a player's Avatar

ZMan & Jim:  Thanks for your comments on the interpretation of the avatar rules.  I've read them in this posting and others, and I respect your inputs.  Lke others, I'd like to make sure I don't get too far down a path of avatar usage, only to have it rejected in Peer Review.  Could you (or anyone else) give me feedback on how you'd feel about the following use of avatars:

My game is in the board game / card game / game show category.  The thought process is that each avatar might have a special skill or occupation that I introduce, similar to an intro of a typical game show.  I'd also like the avatars to react to the introductions.  Examples might include "ZMan is a race car driver from Indiana", which would coincide with the avatar waving and then holding his hands in front of him like a steering wheel; or "Jim Perry is a dancer, who also collects...", which would coincide with the avatar doing a dance-spin.

I've played "SceneIt", and in the context of that game the avatars are moved in a cut-scene without the controlling player moving them, so I'm curious as to if you think I can make the avatars move in the context of introductions as I've described during an opening cut-scene.

Thanks in advance for any inputs!

JPellet:

I'm curious as to if you think I can make the avatars move in the context of introductions as I've described during an opening cut-scene.

As SceneIt isn't an XBLIG game it doesn't have to adhere to the avatar rules applicable to XBLIG games. You do. No controlling the avatar and making up things about the player probably wouldn't be allowed either. I would say just show the avatar standing there waving with the Gamertag displayed.

Jim Perry:

JPellet:

I'm curious as to if you think I can make the avatars move in the context of introductions as I've described during an opening cut-scene.

As SceneIt isn't an XBLIG game it doesn't have to adhere to the avatar rules applicable to XBLIG games. You do. No controlling the avatar and making up things about the player probably wouldn't be allowed either. I would say just show the avatar standing there waving with the Gamertag displayed.

It seems story modes would be pretty much impossible to execute after all, then.  I had posted a topic on the subject, and most felt it would be alright to give the avatar some action and/or motive so long as it was "appropriate to the game event".

For example, when generic love interest/best friend is kidnapped by generic villain, we assume that you, the player both have a generic love interest/best friend and are sufficiently motivated to act.
Then again, if that is out how can you justify forcing the avatar to adhere to the rules of a game of baseball, ping-pong, paintball, or whatever?

I can already tell this rule will be the one to give the most grief.

SRH:

Then again, if that is out how can you justify forcing the avatar to adhere to the rules of a game of baseball, ping-pong, paintball, or whatever?

If you make a baseball game and the player is playing it, then it can be reasonably assubmed that they want to play and adhere to the rules of baseball. As per the love interest, it is possible that the player is not interested in the love interest of the story, but merely the gameplay. Its a fine line for sure. Really up to trial and error with the users.

FortisVenaliter Productions:

If you make a baseball game and the player is playing it, then it can be reasonably assubmed that they want to play and adhere to the rules of baseball. As per the love interest, it is possible that the player is not interested in the love interest of the story, but merely the gameplay. Its a fine line for sure. Really up to trial and error with the users.

Heh... unfortunately it is not up to the user's so much as the reviewers... and perhaps the powers that be at Microsoft.  I sincerely doubt any gamer would have a problem with the story mode I was/am planning.  To try and cover myself I am planning on having pretty much everything selectable.  Generic love interest (or best friend, your call) will be chosen from a list of randomly generated avatars.  You will actually be given the option to go save her (or him).  Regardless, the story mode will definitely be the last thing to be done, so that hopefully by the time I really dig into it the community will have come to a more accepted understanding of the rules.

I'm just glad discussion is going on now so people start developing expectations before the games start coming up in review.  It would be disappointing if we saw lots of fails for NPC avatars talking just because of a misinterpretation.

THe XBLIG rules are (I assume) bases somewhat on the fully licensed developer rules.

At GDC this year there was a talk and one of the points about your avatar is that it represents YOU. This is why it can't talk on its own or be autonomous or have you change the look etc. If in doubt of the other rules then try to apply that one.

So let take the baseball game. You can't dress it up in a baseball outfit but if I saw a game where at bat caused a 'get up from the dugout and walk to the home plate' animation then I personally wouldn't fail it (watch me get corrected by Microsoft here). I don't see that as autonomous behaviour in a baseball game especially if the screen said 'Your turn, press A to go to home plate'. Now if the player then played by itself for hits, catches etc then that would be a problem.

Yes its good to discuss early especially if you think you are pushing the rules but I'm 100% sure there will be 'discussions' in the forums

I agree with SRH in that I'm really happy to be discussing this now instead of after people who have put a fair number of hours into their game get failed Peer Reviews.  That's actually why I wanted to ask the forum, since they will largely be the peer reviewers themselves.

That being said, I'd like to probe on a couple thoughts to spark some discussion and maybe (if I'm lucky :-) consensus.  It seems like there's a lot of focus on the term "autonomous", and the fact that a player didn't choose to have an avatar talk, or have a certain personality.  Building on Pheel's point of:

Pheel:

It would acceptable to choose what the Avatar should say and have that be displayed. Avatars are not Mr Clippy :)

In my example where I would like to give a player a given career (race car driver, dancer, etc), would it then be acceptable for a player to choose what personality / career they would like, and then allow the game to play an introduction based off of that?  I could easily include a "Generic, just wave" selection for anyone that wanted to avoid the other selectable options.

Likewise, given ZMan's point of:

The ZMan:

...if I saw a game where at bat caused a 'get up from the dugout and walk to the home plate' animation then I personally wouldn't fail it

Is that different than an opening introduction/animation of an avatar in a game show, if the player has already selected their chosen personality/career?

Thanks again for the forums' inputs.  I'm asking both because I think I have some fun, light-comedic ideas for contestant avatar animations; and also because it seems like the opinions of the do's and don't's are a bit subjective, so it's great to get the collective input of the forum.

I can say that, unless Microsoft adds further clarification to the rules, I would not fail for that scenario.  If you give the user the choice of the career I would say it is fine and appropriate to have them respond in a way consistent with that choice.

If you have a sports game with soccer and baseball, surely it is appropriate to have different animations and actions if you choose for the avatar to play baseball instead of soccer.

In my own game I am going to be taking a similar approach.  I am working on a Smash Bros style brawler, and in lieu of the character selection you will choose a fighting style.  The character's idle animation (and of course animations for all attacks) will be dependent upon the fighting style, and thus there will be limited personality associated with the choice they make for fighting style.  For example, one style might be called gallant, a gentlemanly fencer/boxer type, while another style, perhaps called punk, would be classified by low blows and "fighting dirty".
There will of course be no speaking from the characters (only minor attack/damage noises), but the way they carry themselves will impart a minor persona... still directly linked with the player's choice.  If the gallant swirls a fencing foil as his idle pose, and the punk punches his palm for his it is consistent with and ultimately the player's determination through choice of style.
Though pushing it, I am also considering giving the ability to taunt (without speech or text).  This would give a much more distinct "personality" to the avatar... but entirely at the player's discretion and under his control.  Thus the gallant might take a bow, while the punk does... whatever punks do.

I would like to hear if anyone thinks any aspect of this approach violates any of the rules.  

If it shows your avatar and says 'pick a profession' and you choose and then he does an animation for that profession then personally I would say the YOU controlled the profession and the aimation was a result of that. Likewise if you press a button to answer a question and your avatar has a speech bubble that says "Yes I was right" then that also was the consequence of your action.

However if a cut scene starts and your character starts telling the story or acting out a story then that would crossthe autonomous line for me.

I have to agree with The_ZMan here. As long as your character is responding to choices you, the player, made, it should be fine. Of course Microsoft can come in here at any time and change that, but I think it is a fair interpretation of the rules.

Although the Avatars do not currently allow you to play your own sound file (.WAV), thy could.
XNA Avatars would need to include the equivalent of a Sound->Visemes converter such as Papagayo.
Or simply include a link to Papagayo in Avatars, and read in the Viseme format of Papagayo, which can be opened
in an Excel import.
 
At the very least, the Avatars should have the ability to show a viseme.