405 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Right, I understand where you're coming from. For me, the silent protagonist / voiced everyone else setup on DA:O killed my immersion. It's a highly subjective experience.

[errant_knight]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's a first person vs. third person narrative problem. To me, cRPGs have always been implicitly third person. To others, games like DA:O were implicitly first person. The dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist are explicitly third person, it doesn't leave the option as to how to treat the game up to the player's interpretation anymore.

If you're like me, you approve of the change and view it as a natural evolution.
If you're a proponent of the first person experience, you probably don't like the change and think it's a radical departure.

This is exactly it.  Me, I want an RPG to be first person, and this is one of the worst of the changes, but apparently at least as many either want or don't care if it's third person. Not going to change now. On the plus side, if they were willing to make these kind of massive changes for DA2, they may do the same for DA3. And the framed narrative makes the game third person anyway, so first person is kind of moot here anyway.

This is an area where there's no middle ground, unlike the combat animations or skills, so whichever way they go, a lot of people will be unhappy, and stay unhappy. It's pretty much lose/lose.

[upsettingshorts]

Not to be too pedantic, it's win/lose. Some winners, some losers. There's not gonna be a ton of indifference, at least around these parts.

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Not to be too pedantic, it's win/lose. Some winners, some losers. There's not gonna be a ton of indifference, at least around these parts.

That struck me too, but I think they mean that someone will always complain, but that's true of every change, so you could equally say win/win, as either is workable.

[upsettingshorts]

Ah, in that case it makes sense.

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Not to be too pedantic, it's win/lose. Some winners, some losers. There's not gonna be a ton of indifference, at least around these parts.

There's not going to be a ton of expressed indifference. That's because most people don't express things when they're indifferent. Concluding that it's a win/lose element because the majority of people you've argued with or against on the subject treat it as such is highly problematic.

[upsettingshorts]

I was only even trying to consider those who had a strong opinion one way or another. Hence "round these parts"

If people don't care then... they don't care.  Plenty of features I don't care about, like S/S romances - so those aren't win/win, or lose/lose, or win/lose.  To me they're meh/meh.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 décembre 2010 - 05:04 .

[In Exile]

errant_knight wrote...
This is exactly it.  Me, I want an RPG to be first person, and this is one of the worst of the changes, but apparently at least as many either want or don't care if it's third person. Not going to change now. On the plus side, if they were willing to make these kind of massive changes for DA2, they may do the same for DA3. And the framed narrative makes the game third person anyway, so first person is kind of moot here anyway. 

I want to object to this. While I prefer PC VO to silent, I think it is precisely the sort of feature that makes a character mine versus not mine. The more silent and undefined the PC, the less it is my PC and the more it is an amorphous block without thought or feeling.

Whether or not I invent motivations or traits, so long as the game gives no opportunity to express these or see them in action, they are as if they don't exist.

Take the issue of tone. It does not matter if I can "pretend" I hear a different tone if the game itself acts as if all things have been delivered in only one way.

This is an area where there's no middle ground, unlike the combat animations or skills, so whichever way they go, a lot of people will be unhappy, and stay unhappy. It's pretty much lose/lose.

Those issues are also issues without middle ground. Any design decision will only satisfy a subset. The question is, what is central to your experience.

[Maria Caliban]

For those of you who are interested in the relationship of a player to their avatar in a game, you might want to know about the concept of embodiment.

Human beings have a flexible mental construct of themselves. classic example: If someone is rear ended while driving, they'll say "He hit me" not "His car hit my car." We've very good at taking up tools and seeing them as extensions of ourselves. This is tied up with proficiency and passiveness in the tool. When I'm driving my car and everything is going well, the car functions as an extension of myself. If the car is having mechanical problems or if I'm someone who doesn't have much experience driving, there's a perceptual gap where I'm much more aware of the car as something other than myself that I'm working with.

It's the same with a keyboard. If someone doesn't use one often, you'll notice they constantly look down, hesitate, and are very slow to type. Someone who's experienced with a keyboard will almost never look at it and while they're typing are almost unaware of the movement of their fingers. Their mind as simply integrated the keyboard into their current concept of self and is now focusing on the larger task.

We see this games as well – not simply RPGs. When the in-game avatar is responsive and it's clear that its actions reflect our control, we see it as an extension of ourselves.

That's embodiment. The next step is symbiosis. Symbiosis is when that avatar does something without our input, but we integrate it into our concept of self anyway. The player perceives something the avatar did on its own as being their action.

Symbiosis is based on embodiment. The human brain is excellent at filtering things from the consciousness. For example, while you're reading this post and others on the BSN, your feet, legs, and body will probably frequently shift position without your conscious desire or even knowledge. While I'm at home, reading a book, I'll sometimes look down to find my cat as curled up on my lap without my realizing it. Someone reaches into a bag of pretzels and realizes there are none left because they ate the last one without being aware of it. Someone tries to remember what they ate for breakfast, but they don't. And they don't remember the drive into work either. You can control your breathing but the majority of the time, it happens automatically.

When I'm playing Dragon Age, click the mouse, and Hawke walks over to a spot, I think "I did that." When Hawke then twirls her swordstaff while standing, I don't think, "Wait, what happened? Why did I just lose control of the character?" It's neatly integrated the experience of being Hawke.

Does this apply to character dialogue? Yes. Some perceive it as a loss of control while others integrate it into the larger experience of playing the character. Some can experience embodiment but can't make the perceptual leap to symbiosis when it comes time to talking.

Cite: Symbiosis - Masquerading Avatar Autonomy as Player Actions by JD Stout.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 22 décembre 2010 - 05:42 .

[Fallstar]

I dont mind the dialogue wheel as long as the dialogue option is actually vaguely representative of what my character says...I remember in mass effect choosing an option about perhaps not trusting Turians and my character coming out with a completely random rascist comment :/

[errant_knight]

In Exile wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
This is exactly it.  Me, I want an RPG to be first person, and this is one of the worst of the changes, but apparently at least as many either want or don't care if it's third person. Not going to change now. On the plus side, if they were willing to make these kind of massive changes for DA2, they may do the same for DA3. And the framed narrative makes the game third person anyway, so first person is kind of moot here anyway. 

I want to object to this. While I prefer PC VO to silent, I think it is precisely the sort of feature that makes a character mine versus not mine. The more silent and undefined the PC, the less it is my PC and the more it is an amorphous block without thought or feeling.

Whether or not I invent motivations or traits, so long as the game gives no opportunity to express these or see them in action, they are as if they don't exist.

Take the issue of tone. It does not matter if I can "pretend" I hear a different tone if the game itself acts as if all things have been delivered in only one way.

This is an area where there's no middle ground, unlike the combat animations or skills, so whichever way they go, a lot of people will be unhappy, and stay unhappy. It's pretty much lose/lose.

Those issues are also issues without middle ground. Any design decision will only satisfy a subset. The question is, what is central to your experience.

Sorry, I don't get what you're objecting to, because we seem to be in general agreement. Is it the idea that the framed narrative puts the story into the third person regardless of dialogue style?

In terms of animation, there is a middle ground. They can be less over the top than they are in DA2, but faster than they were in DA:O. Someoneone will always be unhappy, but that kind of compromise would likely satisfy most parties. That isn't possible with POV, though. It's either first person or third person. There isn't anything in between.

Modifié par errant_knight, 22 décembre 2010 - 05:48 .

[errant_knight]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Not to be too pedantic, it's win/lose. Some winners, some losers. There's not gonna be a ton of indifference, at least around these parts.

I meant lose/lose for the game designers. Either way a good portion of their audience will be calling for their heads.

Ziggeh wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Not to be too pedantic, it's win/lose. Some winners, some losers. There's not gonna be a ton of indifference, at least around these parts.

That struck me too, but I think they mean that someone will always complain, but that's true of every change, so you could equally say win/win, as either is workable.

Right, this is it....

Modifié par errant_knight, 22 décembre 2010 - 05:47 .

[In Exile]

errant_knight wrote...
Sorry, I don't get what you're objecting to, because we seem to be in general agreement. Is it the idea that the framed narrative puts the story into the third person regardless of dialogue style?

No. It's the idea that VO creates a separation between the player and the character.

I actually agree with you, and am very concerned about, the framed narrative.

In terms of animation, there is a middle ground. They can be less over the top than they are in DA2, but faster than they were in DA:O. Someoneone will always be unhappy, but that kind of compromise would likely satisfy most parties. That isn't possible with POV, though. It's either first person or third person. There isn't anything in between.

Not really. With amination, there is simply amination I will like, animation I will tolerate, and amination I will hate. Animation I will tolerate isn't a win.

The same with gameplay. You could have an ME2 FPS, and ME1 FPS, or a turn-based entirely numerical system. ME1 isn't a compromise that will satisfy most people. And so on.

I think VO + dialogue wheel is the ideal compromise of enough fixed background + enough freedom.

[Anathemic]

Maria Caliban wrote...

For those of you who are interested in the relationship of a player to their avatar in a game, you might want to know about the concept of embodiment.

Human beings have a flexible mental construct of themselves. classic example: If someone is rear ended while driving, they'll say "He hit me" not "His car hit my car." We've very good at taking up tools and seeing them as extensions of ourselves. This is tied up with proficiency and passiveness in the tool. When I'm driving my car and everything is going well, the car functions as an extension of myself. If the car is having mechanical problems or if I'm someone who doesn't have much experience driving, there's a perceptual gap where I'm much more aware of the car as something other than myself that I'm working with.

It's the same with a keyboard. If someone doesn't use one often, you'll notice they constantly look down, hesitate, and are very slow to type. Someone who's experienced with a keyboard will almost never look at it and while they're typing are almost unaware of the movement of their fingers. Their mind as simply integrated the keyboard into their current concept of self and is now focusing on the larger task.

We see this games as well – not simply RPGs. When the in-game avatar is responsive and it's clear that its actions reflect our control, we see it as an extension of ourselves.

That's embodiment. The next step is symbiosis. Symbiosis is when that avatar does something without our input, but we integrate it into our concept of self anyway. The player perceives something the avatar did on its own as being their action.

Symbiosis is based on embodiment. The human brain is excellent at filtering things from the consciousness. For example, while you're reading this post and others on the BSN, your feet, legs, and body will probably frequently shift position without your conscious desire or even knowledge. While I'm at home, reading a book, I'll sometimes look down to find my cat as curled up on my lap without my realizing it. Someone reaches into a bag of pretzels and realizes there are none left because they ate the last one without being aware of it. Someone tries to remember what they ate for breakfast, but they don't. And they don't remember the drive into work either. You can control your breathing but the majority of the time, it happens automatically.

When I'm playing Dragon Age, click the mouse, and Hawke walks over to a spot, I think "I did that." When Hawke then twirls her swordstaff while standing, I don't think, "Wait, what happened? Why did I just lose control of the character?" It's neatly integrated the experience of being Hawke.

Does this apply to character dialogue? Yes. Some perceive it as a loss of control while others integrate it into the larger experience of playing the character. Some can experience embodiment but can't make the perceptual leap to symbiosis when it comes time to talking.

Cite: Symbiosis - Masquerading Avatar Autonomy as Player Actions by JD Stout.

QFT, agreed readily and game me some insight on the different viewpoints of people on this forum.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's a first person vs. third person narrative problem. To me, cRPGs have always been implicitly third person. To others, games like DA:O were implicitly first person. The dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist are explicitly third person, it doesn't leave the option as to how to treat the game up to the player's interpretation anymore.

If you're like me, you approve of the change and view it as a natural evolution.
If you're a proponent of the first person experience, you probably don't like the change and think it's a radical departure.

Given the dichotomy, I would hope that they'll consider giving us an option for one or the other in future games, or even creating a different series of games for each style.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

That's embodiment. The next step is symbiosis. Symbiosis is when that avatar does something without our input, but we integrate it into our concept of self anyway. The player perceives something the avatar did on its own as being their action.

Why would anyone do that?  That sounds crazy.

In Exile wrote...

No. It's the idea that VO creates a separation between the player and the character.

I actually agree with you, and am very concerned about, the framed narrative.

I'm the exact opposite.  The VO (particularly with the paraphrase system) seems to me to be the worst possible design.

But the framed narrative doesn't really bother me.  Unless they do something Prince of Persia-ish with the death mechanic, the framed narrative poses no problems that I can see.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why would anyone do that?  That sounds crazy.

No one chooses to do that, any more that people ''choose'' to learn to drive by reflex. It's just how a mental connection forms, and some people are better or more capable at it than others. People see many things as extensions of themselves.

I'm the exact opposite.  The VO (particularly with the paraphrase system) seems to me to be the worst possible design.

The VO adds an important element of reactivity.

To bring in our conversation from the other thread:

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I
think roleplay is metal state + recognized action. My character
acts in a particular way if and only if the world recognizes that action
through content.

In the real world, do you think you haven't
actually acted if the world doesn't notice you?

The world always reacts to my action. I don't mean recognized in the sense that people notice it per se (though this is an element) but that there is a predicatable cause chain from my action to the effect in the world in a coherent and otherwise predictable fashion.

In an RPG, this can only be possible if you act within the parameter of the game as designed.

That being said, since the game can't actually model interaction with objects, (aside from those which are quest triggers) our focus ought to be limited to those situatons wherein we interact with people, in which case all our actions are recognized actions.

Put another way, when I act in the
world, there are always visible and directly related consequences that I
experience.

You notice them, sure.  Why do you hold
RPGs to the higher standard and ask them to notice you as well?

I don't. When I interact with people, they directly and logically react to the intented information I present them. In the small subset of cases where there is a misunderstanding, I can correct it.

In an RPG, a misunderstanding is impossible, because it is impossible to correct. Dialogue has to be 100% predictive, which is why I expect characters to understand you with 100% accuracy.

I do not hold an RPG to a higher standard; only a different one, because part of what is possible in reality is not possible in the game.

An RPG must allow for the same and recognize the choice for what it
is.
The real world doesn't do this.  I don't see why RPGs should
have to.

The real world almost always does this. In the rare cases it does not, I can correct that. In an RPG, you can never correct yourself. Thus characters must either react with 100% accuracy or 0% accuracy. 0% accuracy is just incoherence. Thus they are stuck with 100% accuracy.

But the framed narrative doesn't really bother me.  Unless they do something Prince of Persia-ish with the death mechanic, the framed narrative poses no problems that I can see.

The framed narrative can take features outside of your control. Alpha Protocol forced you to react to a character without knowing who that character was. Bioware at least has Varric tell the story as opposed to Hawke so you are introduced to the story through Hawke's eyes, but such a narrative technique is something that can create a tremendous amount of psychological distance.

[errant_knight]

In Exile wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
Sorry, I don't get what you're objecting to, because we seem to be in general agreement. Is it the idea that the framed narrative puts the story into the third person regardless of dialogue style?

No. It's the idea that VO creates a separation between the player and the character.

I actually agree with you, and am very concerned about, the framed narrative.

In terms of animation, there is a middle ground. They can be less over the top than they are in DA2, but faster than they were in DA:O. Someoneone will always be unhappy, but that kind of compromise would likely satisfy most parties. That isn't possible with POV, though. It's either first person or third person. There isn't anything in between.

Not really. With amination, there is simply amination I will like, animation I will tolerate, and amination I will hate. Animation I will tolerate isn't a win.

The same with gameplay. You could have an ME2 FPS, and ME1 FPS, or a turn-based entirely numerical system. ME1 isn't a compromise that will satisfy most people. And so on.

I think VO + dialogue wheel is the ideal compromise of enough fixed background + enough freedom.

Ah, so I misread your post. That's what happens when I try to do things while getting ready for work. We pretty much disagree entirely.

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why would anyone do that?  That sounds crazy.

As soon as started writing about symbiosis, I knew you'd pop up and talk about how it wasn't rational.

In order for people to function, their mind has to integrate activities that aren't the product of their direct, conscious control into their sense of self. My eyes blink constantly without my knowledge or control. I either accept that part of me acts independently of my will or I decide that my eyelids are not part of 'Maria.'

It's the same with a computer avatar. If I've managed to integrate it into my sense of self, some autonomous actions will be perceived as part of 'Maria.' Not all of them.

[Addai]

@Maria, that was a very useful analysis/ summary. And interesting too.

[Away]

Thank you for that Maria, it's very interesting, I enjoyed it and it gave some insight into different opinions on various stances taken on this forum.

[In Exile]

errant_knight wrote...
Ah, so I misread your post. That's what happens when I try to do things while getting ready for work. We pretty much disagree entirely.

Yeah. I just want to bring up that I don't think people ought to take the 1st/3rd person distiction as absolute fact in terms of attachment, because while that may even be the majority opinion, it is not per se the objective truth.

I also think in general compromise only works if you're a compromising person. I'm open to lots of things, but when I have a feature I want, I'm not very willing to negotiate.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

No one chooses to do that, any more that people ''choose'' to learn to drive by reflex. It's just how a mental connection forms, and some people are better or more capable at it than others. People see many things as extensions of themselves.

This is actually the heart of my objection to Stout's paper.

Stout starts out writing about avatars, which he does well.  He defines avatars in a way I would call accurate, and I think the connection he describes makes perfect sense when talking about an avatar.

Except then he begins to equate avatars with in-game characters, and I think those are very different things.  In an RPG, the player controls a character.  That character is not an avatar of the player, but a character in his own right existing independently in his world (the game's setting).  Nothing Stout said about avatars applies to characters, so his paper has no relevance here.

The world always reacts to my action. I don't mean recognized in the sense that people notice it per se (though this is an element) but that there is a predicatable cause chain from my action to the effect in the world in a coherent and otherwise predictable fashion.

When I talk to myself, for example, which I do a lot (or I'll speak to others even though I'm well aware they can't hear me - perhaps because they're in another car and they're 20 metres away), what's important to me is that I've done it.  The world doesn't react to it at all.

And when I do speak to people, the predictable consequences are pretty minimal, I find.  When I expect to be audible, people sometimes hear me.  And when I don't expect to be audible they hear me less often.  What specific conclusions they'll draw or what they'll do in response to what I say (or how I say it) is something I cannot begin to predict with anything like the accuracy you claim.

So for me, the voiced PC is solving a problem that I don't think exists.

In an RPG, this can only be possible if you act within the parameter of the game as designed.

That being said, since the game can't actually model interaction with objects, (aside from those which are quest triggers) our focus ought to be limited to those situatons wherein we interact with people, in which case all our actions are recognized actions.

And since I think people are unpredictable, this strikes me as a fool's errand.

When I interact with people, they directly and logically react to the intented information I present them.

I would count this as a rare, nay, freak occurence.

In the small subset of cases where there is a misunderstanding, I can correct it.

I can't, because I can't be sure they've actually misunderstood me, rather than reacted to what I said in combination with something else of which I am unaware, in which case their reaction makes perfect sense (but sense I can't perceive).

In an RPG, you can never correct yourself. Thus characters must either react with 100% accuracy or 0% accuracy. 0% accuracy is just incoherence. Thus they are stuck with 100% accuracy.

I don't think the accuracy rate is knowable, so there's no reason to prefer one over the other.

The framed narrative can take features outside of your control. Alpha Protocol forced you to react to a character without knowing who that character was. Bioware at least has Varric tell the story as opposed to Hawke so you are introduced to the story through Hawke's eyes, but such a narrative technique is something that can create a tremendous amount of psychological distance.

I think Varric's narration can add back in the ambiguity the voice-over takes away, so I'm really quite excited about it.

Maria Caliban wrote...

As soon as started writing about symbiosis, I knew you'd pop up and talk about how it wasn't rational.

In order for people to function, their mind has to integrate activities that aren't the product of their direct, conscious control into their sense of self. My eyes blink constantly without my knowledge or control. I either accept that part of me acts independently of my will or I decide that my eyelids are not part of 'Maria.'

A dualist might hold that the eyelids are not part of Maria, but only part of the shell in which Maria resides.  And that shell is partly autonomous.

I am not advocating dualism.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Except then he begins to equate avatars with in-game characters, and I think those are very different things.  In an RPG, the player controls a character.  That character is not an avatar of the player, but a character in his own right existing independently in his world (the game's setting).  Nothing Stout said about avatars applies to characters, so his paper has no relevance here.

Isn't this disagreement just a consequence of the fundamental disagreement you have with Stout on the nature of the self?

Reading that paper, I wondered if it might be related to our discussion of the interface. When I'm playing an RPG, if I'm conscious of AlanC9 looking at an interface the design has already failed. So "period " looks can't help me and actually hurt if they're fancy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Isn't this disagreement just a consequence of the fundamental disagreement you have with Stout on the nature of the self?

I don't think so.  I think this disagreement has to do with the nature of roleplaying.

When you're playing a (non-roleplaying) game, you (the player) are represented in the game by an avatar.  That avatar is an extension of your self.  This is what Stout says, and I think Stout is right about that.

I just think that the subject of avatars has nothing at all to do with roleplaying games, since your character in an RPG isn't an avatar of you.

Reading that paper, I wondered if it might be related to our discussion of the interface. When I'm playing an RPG, if I'm conscious of AlanC9 looking at an interface the design has already failed. So "period " looks can't help me and actually hurt if they're fancy.

In a way.  I agree with you about the interface (that's why I like a frame, and I don't think I advocated any particular style or theme beyond that), but the difference is that I'm not just trying to ignore that I'm Sylvius looking through an interface, but I'm trying to ignore that I am Sylvius.  I'm already doing a bunch of mental gynmastics to achieve that, so I can't allow the character to feel like an extension of my subconscious (as Stout describes) because my subconscious is still Sylvius, and Sylvius has no place within the game.  Sylvius doesn't exist within the game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 décembre 2010 - 11:50 .