1230 réponses à ce sujet

[Kenrae]

Davasar wrote...

It's rather unfortunate, as I prefer to let my imagination provide the voice. I literally had another poster tell me he is unable to do that and that others might be in the same boat. Some lack the imagination I suppose, so to each their own I guess.

I play pen&paper RPGs for that. Neither reading nor hearing (which I see as basically the same thing), me talking instead.
No computer game has ever come close to that to this date.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AndarianTD wrote...

I'll try to elaborate on why a bit later when I have more time to write at length. But for now I'll say that it has to do at least partly with an observation I made on another recent thread, that several different and incompatible definitions of "roleplaying" have been circulating among the gaming community for some time. "Sandbox" or "Roll-Playing" style RP may be a different story, but cinematic presentation is fully compatible with role-playing focused on playing a role in an interactive story. In fact that's been the particular focus of my NWN modding work for several years now.

I've responded in that other thread, but I would like to point out that playing a role is awfully difficult if you don't know why your character is doing what he's doing.  How then could you make subsequent decisions if you don't know what drove the last one?

And that even assumes you're able to make the decisions at all (unlike Mass Effect, where the dialogue wheel concealed the choices from you so you didn't even get to choose behaviour).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 28 juillet 2010 - 09:01 .

[The Masked Rog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

I'll try to elaborate on why a bit later when I have more time to write at length. But for now I'll say that it has to do at least partly with an observation I made on another recent thread, that several different and incompatible definitions of "roleplaying" have been circulating among the gaming community for some time. "Sandbox" or "Roll-Playing" style RP may be a different story, but cinematic presentation is fully compatible with role-playing focused on playing a role in an interactive story. In fact that's been the particular focus of my NWN modding work for several years now.

I've responded in that other thread, but I would like to point out that playing a role is awfully difficult if you don't know why your character is doing what he's doing.  How then could you make subsequent decisions if you don't know what drove the last one?

And that even assumes you're able to make the decisions at all (unlike Mass Effect, where the dialogue wheel concealed the choices from you so you didn't even get to choose behaviour).

But you know what you are doing and why you are doing it, right? It's your character. If you don't know why it's doing it, you probably should have it doing something else, no?

And I don't think there are choices concealed in DA2's dialogue wheel. Since there is no morality meter, that would make no sense. At least I hope they don't do it,because in ME it was like the worst design decision ever!

[AndarianTD]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I've responded in that other thread, but I would like to point out that playing a role is awfully difficult if you don't know why your character is doing what he's doing.  How then could you make subsequent decisions if you don't know what drove the last one?

But you know what you are doing and why you are doing it, right? It's your character. If you don't know why it's doing it, you probably should have it doing something else, no?

At the risk of a slightly technical digression, this ties back to what I said on the other thread about my view of good storytelling as being purpose and plot driven. On that view, player character motive really needs at some level to be part of the authored narrative, at least implicitly, and not just something left to an unstated and allegedly "emergent" narrative that's co-created by the player. That's because in a plot-driven narrative you can only go so far with the overall "meta-plot," as well as the plot-thread variations within it, without matching a specific purpose to the progression of events.

So at least as I approach it, the author needs to give you a defined and limited set of motives that he's carefully worked out and matched, each to a corresponding plot-thread, all of which work artistically in the context of the overall meta-plot. When you try to go past that and give the player unlimited or unspecified agency to do anything or assume any motive whatever, you have to correspondingly dilute the depth and specificity of the story and events.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 29 juillet 2010 - 02:07 .

[Riona45]

Kenrae wrote...

Davasar wrote...

It's rather unfortunate, as I prefer to let my imagination provide the voice. I literally had another poster tell me he is unable to do that and that others might be in the same boat. Some lack the imagination I suppose, so to each their own I guess.

I play pen&paper RPGs for that. Neither reading nor hearing (which I see as basically the same thing), me talking instead.
No computer game has ever come close to that to this date.

Same here.  This is something I've mentioned quite a bit, actually, when this topic comes up.  In a computer game, you still are just picking lines that someone else wrote, not creating them with your own imagination.

Modifié par Riona45, 29 juillet 2010 - 02:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AndarianTD wrote...

At the risk of a slightly technical digression, this ties back to what I said on the other thread about my view of good storytelling as being purpose and plot driven. On that view, player character motive really needs at some level to be part of the authored narrative, at least implicitly, and not just something left to an unstated and allegedly "emergent" narrative that's co-created by the player. That's because in a plot-driven narrative you can only go so far with the overall "meta-plot," as well as the plot-thread variations within it, without matching a specific purpose to the progression of events.

So at least as I approach it, the author needs to give you a defined and limited set of motives that he's carefully worked out and matched, each to a corresponding plot-thread, all of which work artistically in the context of the overall meta-plot. When you try to go past that and give the player unlimited or unspecified agency to do anything or assume any motive whatever, you have to correspondingly dilute the depth and specificity of the story and events.

I would agree.  This is why I say that a tightly scripted story inhibits roleplaying.

And I choose roleplaying over story-telling.

[AndarianTD]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would agree.  This is why I say that a tightly scripted story inhibits roleplaying.

And I choose roleplaying over story-telling.

I would qualify this to say that what you're choosing is your particular understanding or definition of roleplaying, and that not everyone means the same thing by the term as you do. As I said, there are several definitions if "role-playing" that have been circulating in the gaming community for some time, and they're not always compatible. That's something that everyone discussing this subject should probably bear in mind.

Aside from that observation, though, your point is a valid one. If the particular kind of RP that you describe is your central priority, then you're right that a tightly defined story does inhibit it. But that doesn't make story-based gaming "bad" or mean that it lacks quality. It's just a different kind of gaming with different standards for what makes something "good" -- as a story-based game.

Then the question becomes: what are Bioware's priorities, what is its business model, and what are they trying to create? Bioware calls what they do "story-based gaming," and that tells me where their primary focus is. Folks who want a less story-based and looser, more "old-school" type of experience certainly have a right to be disappointed by this, but that's about it.

[LdyShayna]

AndarianTD wrote...
Then the question becomes: what are Bioware's priorities, what is its business model, and what are they trying to create? Bioware calls what they do "story-based gaming," and that tells me where their primary focus is. Folks who want a less story-based and looser, more "old-school" type of experience certainly have a right to be disappointed by this, but that's about it.

EDIT: Bah.  Nevermind.  It was the rabid, bug-eyed weasel staring at me again.  Carry on.  I'll leave like I intended.

Modifié par LdyShayna, 29 juillet 2010 - 04:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AndarianTD wrote...

Then the question becomes: what are Bioware's priorities, what is its business model, and what are they trying to create? Bioware calls what they do "story-based gaming," and that tells me where their primary focus is. Folks who want a less story-based and looser, more "old-school" type of experience certainly have a right to be disappointed by this, but that's about it.

And hence my regular appeals to emergent narrative.

They haven't really specified that their core objective is a tightly-woven authored narrative, so I'm going to keep pointing out that they can offer story-based games, with story-driven gameplay, even if they don't control every aspect of that story.

They do seem to be trying to control more and more aspects of the story, what with their cinematic presentation and depth-of-field effects, with the voiced PC and companions who act idependently.  But they don't have to do that.  And I'm going to keep saying so.

[AlanC9]

The thing about emergent narrative is that what emerges is different from an authored narrative. If your tastes run towards the traditional stuff, an emergent narrative just won't be a good substitute.

[AndarianTD]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They haven't really specified that their core objective is a tightly-woven authored narrative, so I'm going to keep pointing out that they can offer story-based games, with story-driven gameplay, even if they don't control every aspect of that story.

They do seem to be trying to control more and more aspects of the story, what with their cinematic presentation and depth-of-field effects, with the voiced PC and companions who act idependently.  But they don't have to do that.  And I'm going to keep saying so.

Well, yes, I think they do have to do that if they want to excel at making story-based games. That's my point. If they only want to go so far with the process, and keep the story open and undefined enough accomodate the form of roleplaying qua computer-assisted fantasizing that you describe, then that's another story (pun not intended). There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not story-based gaming in what I would call its highest and purest form -- which, as I argued, requires a detailed, purposeful, integrated, and plot-driven narrative structure.

The flip-side of your observation about a tightly defined (plot-driven) story inhibiting free-form role-playing is a point that I've frequently made in discussion of my own mods. That is, that trying to accomodate free-form role-playing inhibits creating a plot-driven narrative structure. I build NWN mods and this particular kind of development is actually my specialty, so I do have some experience with this. And that experience says that there is only so far you can go with crafting a compelling story while still leaving the player's options open enough for the kind of thing you're talking about. Past that point, you have to start making tradeoffs. Do I sacrifice the details and specifics needed to craft a compelling story for player flexibility, or go the other way?

My point is that I think there is only so far you can go in terms of creating a compelling storytelling experience with what you're calling an "emergent narrative." Beyond that point, you have to focus on using an authored narrative. That's because in really good storytelling, plot-purpose and the sequence of events need to be integrated to work together to create a compelling player experience. A "one size fits all" structure and events that accomodate too wide a range of motives, by contrast, has to be too un-specific to accomplish that goal.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 29 juillet 2010 - 08:49 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AndarianTD wrote...

Well, yes, I think they do have to do that if they want to excel at making story-based games. That's my point. If they only want to go so far with the process, and keep the story open and undefined enough accomodate the form of roleplaying qua computer-assisted fantasizing that you describe, then that's another story (pun not intended). There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not story-based gaming in what I would call its highest and purest form -- which, as I argued, requires a detailed, purposeful, integrated, and plot-driven narrative structure.

Yes, and I think you're mis-defining "story" by limiting it just to authored narrative.

There's nothing in the design of the game that prevents an emergent narrative from being tightly woven and driving gameplay, but it's up to the player to make it so.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes, and I think you're mis-defining "story" by limiting it just to authored narrative.

I think you're mistakenly including imagination into what can constitute a story. Insofar as you allow for gaps or ambiguities that demand the player (or reader, or whatever) fill in, you're effectively asking someone to use their imagination for a very specific purpose. And not everyone likes that, or feels particularly free or otherwise empowered doing it. I'll expand below.

There's nothing in the design of the game that prevents an emergent narrative from being tightly woven and driving gameplay, but it's up to the player to make it so.

That's not quite true. Players may well demand reactivity on the part of the story and dislike the dramatic limitation of freedom imposed by a partially structured narrative. Take dragon age, for example. As a decision by design, it is impossible to ever have a male human noble become King, or a dwarf noble become King/Queen. Any imagination that the player uses has to be constrained to operate within the bounds of the story created by the writers.

Put another way, the kind of thing that you think is freedom is not the same kind of thing I think is freedom in a narrative. To you, what consistutes a free narrative is an incredibly ambiguity about your motives and background. To me, narrative freedom is reactivty to choice.

If your story gives me complete character ambiguity and flexible responses that allow me to fill in whatever A-B event like I want (using the A-B link to represent a "filler" I as the player create to bridge a gap between one scene the game "shows" and another scene the game "shows" per your take on how games operate) that does not give me any particular kind of freedom because I am still constrained in-game by the design decisions made by the writer to only incorporate a limited number of potential plot branches and story outcomes.

So we are right back to the notion that a narrative only provides a particular kind of freedom, in addition to the fact that your notion of story demands a very anchored form of imagination that might not even be all that engaging to every player, which all goes to the general point that your notion of what it is for something to be a story is highly subjective.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I think you're mistakenly including imagination into what can constitute a story.

A story is narrative. That's all a story is.  Narrowing the definition beyond that is simply incorrect.

That's not quite true. Players may well demand reactivity on the part of the story and dislike the dramatic limitation of freedom imposed by a partially structured narrative. Take dragon age, for example. As a decision by design, it is impossible to ever have a male human noble become King, or a dwarf noble become King/Queen. Any imagination that the player uses has to be constrained to operate within the bounds of the story created by the writers.

Of course.  We must want some limits on our ability to craft or discover an emergent narrative, otherwise we'd just sit down and write our own.  Every game is going to establish explicit and immutable facts like "your character has physical form" or "objects fall down".

Suggesting that anyone would want no restrictions at all is absurd.

Put another way, the kind of thing that you think is freedom is not the same kind of thing I think is freedom in a narrative. To you, what consistutes a free narrative is an incredibly ambiguity about your motives and background. To me, narrative freedom is reactivty to choice.

If your story gives me complete character ambiguity and flexible responses that allow me to fill in whatever A-B event like I want (using the A-B link to represent a "filler" I as the player create to bridge a gap between one scene the game "shows" and another scene the game "shows" per your take on how games operate) that does not give me any particular kind of freedom because I am still constrained in-game by the design decisions made by the writer to only incorporate a limited number of potential plot branches and story outcomes.

So we are right back to the notion that a narrative only provides a particular kind of freedom, in addition to the fact that your notion of story demands a very anchored form of imagination that might not even be all that engaging to every player, which all goes to the general point that your notion of what it is for something to be a story is highly subjective.

I'm not disputing that.  My objection in this thread was to the assertion that story-based games, to be good story-based games, must focus on the authored narrative over the emergent narrative.  And that hasn't been established at all.

You prefer an authored narrative.  I prefer an emergent narrative.  But the assertion was made above that the pinnacle of story-based gaming was necessarily authored over emergent.  And I don't buy it.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
A story is narrative. That's all a story is.  Narrowing the definition beyond that is simply incorrect.

This is just rhetorical nonsense.

We are debating semantics. A particular definition for story was put forward. You put forward an alternative definition, and called someone else called it a narrative. Saying a story is a narrative at this point is simply restating what your opinion is on the definition, which is in other words is saying nothing more than you think that you're right.

Of course.  We must want some limits on our ability to craft or discover an emergent narrative, otherwise we'd just sit down and write our own.  Every game is going to establish explicit and immutable facts like "your character has physical form" or "objects fall down".

A particular set of physical laws is quite unlike plot restrictions, and the opposite of reactions. You do not want reactions. You do not want Alistair to talk about your ambition, or the story to take things about you as true. You want this freedom. What I am saying, explicitly, is that other players want a game that does precisely this, and do not consider its absence freedom.

You have a very bad habit of taking the subjective as objective.

I'm not disputing that.  My objection in this thread was to the assertion that story-based games, to be good story-based games, must focus on the authored narrative over the emergent narrative.  And that hasn't been established at all.

Right - which is why a claim like "story is narrative" is empty.

You prefer an authored narrative.  I prefer an emergent narrative.  But the assertion was made above that the pinnacle of story-based gaming was necessarily authored over emergent.  And I don't buy it.

But your claim hinges on the fact that you think these two things are not mutually exclusive. I am not even debating whether that is true. What I am debating is whether or not someone could think that is true, which is to say that for some people, these might be mutually exclusive. All of which is to say that this is a matter of taste, and you're adamant about your taste being objective.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

This is just rhetorical nonsense.

We are debating semantics. A particular definition for story was put forward. You put forward an alternative definition, and called someone else called it a narrative. Saying a story is a narrative at this point is simply restating what your opinion is on the definition, which is in other words is saying nothing more than you think that you're right.

Definitions are not matters of opinion.

What I am saying, explicitly, is that other players want a game that does precisely this, and do not consider its absence freedom.

That's just crazy.  They may not consider its absence desireable, but that it offers freedom is undeniable.

The opposite may also offer freedom.  I haven't claimed otherwise.

But your claim hinges on the fact that you think these two things are not mutually exclusive.

No, it doesn't.  Whether I consider the two mutually exclusive is immaterial.  I'm saying that the assertion that the best and purest form of story-telling is a tightly-woven, plot-driven, authored narrative hasn't been supported.  I'm not even saying it's not true.  I'm saying that the opinion piece written above that claims it to be true is entirely without foundation because it ignores the possibility of other types of narrative.

[Dorateen]

Rght on, Sylvius!



Harumph!

[AndarianTD]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, and I think you're mis-defining "story" by limiting it just to authored narrative.

That is a mischaracterization of my position. If you want to understand my point, read what I wrote.

There's nothing in the design of the game that prevents an emergent narrative from being tightly woven and driving gameplay, but it's up to the player to make it so.

We disagree on this point.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm saying that the assertion that the best and purest form of story-telling is a tightly-woven, plot-driven, authored narrative hasn't been supported.  I'm not even saying it's not true.  I'm saying that the opinion piece written above that claims it to be true is entirely without foundation because it ignores the possibility of other types of narrative.

Again, this is a mischaracterization of my position. But you don't have to buy my views on this. All you need to do is take AlanC9's point that folks who prefer something along the lines of a "traditional" plot-driven narrative can't get that experience from a game structured around what you're calling an "emergent narrative." Then the issue becomes, as I said before: what does a developer (like Bioware) want to create? What is it that players want to see?

You've already conceded the fact that tight storytelling inhibits (your idea of) roleplaying, and that when the two come into conflict you choose (your idea of) roleplaying. Fine. In that situation, I choose tight storytelling instead. So, I think, does Bioware. I think that makes an objectively better game. You don't. In the end this all comes back to the simple fact that Bioware wants to make, and thinks their customers want to see, a different kind of game than you do.

That said, I don't have anything further to add to this discussion.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 29 juillet 2010 - 11:10 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Definitions are not matters of opinion. [/quote]

They most certainly are, regardless of which position you take on categorization or meaning.

Let's suppose you believe that there are definite and unique meanings, and that these definite and unique meanings have one and only one appropriate word/sound/etc. that can apply to them.

Even so, we can still debate whether the word/sound/etc. is appropriate for one particular meaning versus another.

Moreover, it is an issue of whether or not we discover the meaning and affix to it a name, or have a name that we assign a meaning. That itself can be debated.

Even in logic, where a definition is only a matter of convention, we can still debate on other merits which convention is appropriate.

So, bluntly, definitions are never a matter of opinion.

[quote]That's just crazy.  They may not consider its absence desireable, but that it offers freedom is undeniable.[/quote]

No, that's false. I would assume you agree that something increases freedom only if it expands your possible options. Put another way, if something happens, and you have the same options before or after, then your freedom has  But whether or not it does in fact expand your possible options is a matter that is contested.

[quote]The opposite may also offer freedom.  I haven't claimed otherwise.[/quote]

But you have not appreciated my criticism. I am challenging the very things you consider choices. I am being more fundamental

[quote]No, it doesn't.  Whether I consider the two mutually exclusive is immaterial.  I'm saying that the assertion that the best and purest form of story-telling is a tightly-woven, plot-driven, authored narrative hasn't been supported.[/quote]

No, your claim is stronger than that, because you are claiming that there is an alternative possible definition for what story is.

[quote]I'm not even saying it's not true. [/quote]

"A story is narrative. That's all a story is. "

That seems like a very clear statement that the above is not true.

[quite]I'm saying that the opinion piece written above that claims it to be true is entirely without foundation because it ignores the possibility of other types of narrative.[/quote]

It does not. It provides an argument for a definition. If we accept the definition, it follows trivially that other kinds of narrative cannot be possible and be a story. So the point at issue is the definition; all else is consequence.

[AlanC9]

Dorateen wrote...

Rght on, Sylvius!

Harumph!

Dorateen! Good to see you.

I'm gonna stay out of the debate here. I'm down with J.L. Austin and Stanley Fish -- I guess you could say I'm a Sophist. I just don't think I'll have the time to participate.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 juillet 2010 - 02:53 .

[Terror_K]

Just saw this article: http://news.softpedi...og-149718.shtml

Again... can't help but see ME2 parallels: Players worried about ME2 lacking RPG elements, and then the devs telling them not to worry and saying that dialogue, story and narrative are still fine, yet avoiding the more core RPG factors entirely. Seems like we've just got another new train on the same old track at the moment.

[In Exile]

It might shock you, but some people think the RPG element are the story, dialogue and narrative. Yes, yes, I get it, you think statistics matter, go play adventure games, yadda yadda. Bioware can think otherwise and not be lying or misleading anyone.

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

It might shock you, but some people think the RPG element are the story, dialogue and narrative. Yes, yes, I get it, you think statistics matter, go play adventure games, yadda yadda. Bioware can think otherwise and not be lying or misleading anyone.

Hey, don't get me wrong... the story, dialogue, characters and overall presentation are the thing I like most about BioWare games. They're what keep me playing and interested and why I invest so much time and interest into their games. But that doesn't mean I don't want some gameplay depth and a good statistical system as well. It's just that with ME2 BioWare said "don't worry, it's got all this other stuff, so it's still as deep an RPG and as much of an RPG as it was before" and that was a lie.

[Jimmy Fury]

Terror_K wrote...

Just saw this article: http://news.softpedi...og-149718.shtml

Again... can't help but see ME2 parallels: Players worried about ME2 lacking RPG elements, and then the devs telling them not to worry and saying that dialogue, story and narrative are still fine, yet avoiding the more core RPG factors entirely. Seems like we've just got another new train on the same old track at the moment.

what part of that article gave you that conclusion though? All it's talking about is how DA2 will have more dialogue options than Origins had... there's absolutely no ME2 parallel there, they never made any attempt to claim ME2 had more dialogue than ME1

[Sylvius the Mad]

Terror_K wrote...

Just saw this article: http://news.softpedi...og-149718.shtml

Again... can't help but see ME2 parallels: Players worried about ME2 lacking RPG elements, and then the devs telling them not to worry and saying that dialogue, story and narrative are still fine, yet avoiding the more core RPG factors entirely. Seems like we've just got another new train on the same old track at the moment.

ME2 lacks all the same RPG elements ME1 did.  And it does so for the same reasons: the dialogue and its implementation.

To assuage fears about RPG elements in ME2, BioWare would have had to say that the dialogue and narrative had changed fundamentally from the first game.  They said the opposite, thus demonstrating that they missed the point.