505 réponses à ce sujet

[Captain Jazz]

I have an idea... bioware could clear this whole thing up by having everyone address your character as Alison does the warden: "H-hullo... s-stran-ger"

It has a fine ring to it.

[Drasanil]

David Gaider wrote...

Even If I play a computer game I roleplay the character I am playing as in normal RPG. Not only I see his actions that happen on screen but I envision details of his backstory, his goals, his feelings, his views of situations in which he acts. I treat this as normal gameplay roleplay experience.
The name might be mentioned rarely on screen-but when I roleplay a character in computer game it is constantly on my mind as are its other traits.

If my GM said my character needed to have a specific last name, I'd be fine with that so long as I still got to play my character the way I wanted. If I said "no way, I want to be a dwarf named Ermine and be from Kal-Sharok" and he said "but that's not going to fit into the story I have planned" ...well, I can either go off and keep Ermine with no place to go or I can see what he has in mind. Even a tabletop RPG is a collaborative experience between storyteller and player-- it's not one-sided.

Yes but a good GM wouldn't force you to play a character you had no interest in, no matter how awesome he was. If he knew you found humans completely dull and uninspiring he wouldn't make you play one to accommodate his story, rather he would find a way make your dwarf or elf fit into his story.

Which is what is so disappointing about being forced to play Hawke. Hawke is the epitome of mediocrity, Hawke is the safe bland choice that everyone can stomach to some degree or another. Compared the thought and creativity that went into DAO origins he is the stale gruel of role-playing, clichéd peasant destined to be hero devoid of any of the collaborative effort you mentioned above.  

[AlanC9]

Saibh wrote...
Being called "Warden" however, doesn't leave you a lot of room edgewise. They are constantly inferring your status, your history, the tradition of your order, and so on

But aren't they right to make those inferences? Not only are you a Warden, you're acting as a Warden; the only reason you're even allowed in Orzammar is because you're there in your capacity as a Warden, for instance.

[Erebusd13]

I think part of what we are seeing here is frustration about the current state of gaming, especially when it comes to RPGs. For a time, especially with the release of NWN, it seemed as if the future of RPGs was to put as much customization and individualization into the hands of gamers as possible. It was a false promise however and with the rise of consoles as a primary gaming platform, rising piracy, and overall rise in costs we have scene a significant step back from this. DAO though it did limit choice in some ways was one of the more open games to appear in the genre in many years and for a large part of the audience there was an anticipation that the sequel to it would expand rather than narrow these possibilities. That is not to be and of course it is not too surprising as ever different path/choice that exists represents an investment of time and money. I'm disappointed but as long as there remains moral ambiguities and not the standard GvE I'll probably still get the game...though now I'll wait on the reviews rather than preorder.

[Saibh]

AlanC9 wrote...

Saibh wrote...
Being called "Warden" however, doesn't leave you a lot of room edgewise. They are constantly inferring your status, your history, the tradition of your order, and so on

But aren't they right to make those inferences? Not only are you a Warden, you're acting as a Warden; the only reason you're even allowed in Orzammar is because you're there in your capacity as a Warden, for instance.

Right, of course. But being called "Hawke" doesn't define who you are. Nor is it more restrictive. Your race might now be down to human, but that's it--you're not being told who you are. Oh, and Bethany. She's there too.

[AlanC9]

Drasanil wrote...
Yes but a good GM wouldn't force you to play a character you had no interest in, no matter how awesome he was. If he knew you found humans completely dull and uninspiring he wouldn't make you play one to accommodate his story, rather he would find a way make your dwarf or elf fit into his story.

Which is what is so disappointing about being forced to play Hawke. Hawke is the epitome of mediocrity, Hawke is the safe bland choice that everyone can stomach to some degree or another. Compared the thought and creativity that went into DAO origins he is the stale gruel of role-playing, clichéd peasant destined to be hero devoid of any of the collaborative effort you mentioned above.  

I'd find this line of argument a hell of a lot more convincing if I hadn't played plenty of CRPGs, even great CRPGs, where I had a predefined character. I suppose the epitome would be PS:T, where you couldn't change appearance, sex, or name. Plenty more, but we don't really need to get into lists.

[AlanC9]

Saibh wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Saibh wrote...
Being called "Warden" however, doesn't leave you a lot of room edgewise. They are constantly inferring your status, your history, the tradition of your order, and so on

But aren't they right to make those inferences? Not only are you a Warden, you're acting as a Warden; the only reason you're even allowed in Orzammar is because you're there in your capacity as a Warden, for instance.

Right, of course. But being called "Hawke" doesn't define who you are. Nor is it more restrictive. Your race might now be down to human, but that's it--you're not being told who you are. Oh, and Bethany. She's there too.

Gotcha. We have no dispute here.

[Saibh]

Drasanil wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Even If I play a computer game I roleplay the character I am playing as in normal RPG. Not only I see his actions that happen on screen but I envision details of his backstory, his goals, his feelings, his views of situations in which he acts. I treat this as normal gameplay roleplay experience.
The name might be mentioned rarely on screen-but when I roleplay a character in computer game it is constantly on my mind as are its other traits.

If my GM said my character needed to have a specific last name, I'd be fine with that so long as I still got to play my character the way I wanted. If I said "no way, I want to be a dwarf named Ermine and be from Kal-Sharok" and he said "but that's not going to fit into the story I have planned" ...well, I can either go off and keep Ermine with no place to go or I can see what he has in mind. Even a tabletop RPG is a collaborative experience between storyteller and player-- it's not one-sided.

Yes but a good GM wouldn't force you to play a character you had no interest in, no matter how awesome he was. If he knew you found humans completely dull and uninspiring he wouldn't make you play one to accommodate his story, rather he would find a way make your dwarf or elf fit into his story.

Which is what is so disappointing about being forced to play Hawke. Hawke is the epitome of mediocrity, Hawke is the safe bland choice that everyone can stomach to some degree or another. Compared the thought and creativity that went into DAO origins he is the stale gruel of role-playing, clichéd peasant destined to be hero devoid of any of the collaborative effort you mentioned above.  

I vote they allow us to play as nugs next. I've felt too restricted, and I've always wanted to fight against the tyranny of our dwarven devourers! And Orlesian slave-keepers!

There's a limit on how much they can possibly let you choose and be--and guess what, you don't have to buy this game. You don't have to play it.

[Captain Jazz]

Kordaris wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Right, of course. But being called "Hawke" doesn't define who you are. Nor is it more restrictive. Your race might now be down to human, but that's it--you're not being told who you are. Oh, and Bethany. She's there too.

Both race and name are very strong identifiers of who you are.

I am a human and my surname is Scott. Please, tell me everything you can deduce about me from these strong identifiers.

[Saibh]

Kordaris wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Right, of course. But being called "Hawke" doesn't define who you are. Nor is it more restrictive. Your race might now be down to human, but that's it--you're not being told who you are. Oh, and Bethany. She's there too.

Both race and name are very strong identifiers of who you are.

No. They are not.

I can tell you, it doesn't matter what my name is, and I'm human. These two things did not define me--and guess what, I actually know what happened in my past. You don't know (yet, I don't know if you'll ever) what happened in Hawke's. I imagine you'll get to choose how you felt about whatever happened to your parents, your relationship with your sister.

[Merci357]

Kordaris wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Right, of course. But being called "Hawke" doesn't define who you are. Nor is it more restrictive. Your race might now be down to human, but that's it--you're not being told who you are. Oh, and Bethany. She's there too.

Both race and name are very strong identifiers of who you are.

But how? Fine, I'm a human called Hawke. That has no implications beyond that. Neither regarding alignment nor profession. In my view it's more freedom then in Origins, where you had no choice but to join the Grey Wardens. And, as mentioned a million times, the fixed sure name was there, as well.

[AlanC9]

Kordaris wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

That's exactly the point, Watson. Language should be used with precision. I know it feels better to state your own preferences as if they're Universal Truths, but it doesn't make your point more convincing. If anything, it has the opposite effect. Or worse, you get bogged down the way In Exile and Anathemic just did.

Which language? What feels? What preferences? What point? What effect? Sherlock you are not.

You stated that what made the game fun -- full stop, no qualifiers -- was the things that you personally liked about it. This is obviously an imprecise use of language, which I corrected. You didn't even try to defend it; all you said was that it was obvious that you didn't actually mean what you were saying.

This sort of thing just isn't effective rhetoric. Though I get the feeling that's besides the point now; it's pretty obvious that you gave up trying to bring people around to your view about ten pages ago.

Edit: man, I said "obvious" a lot there.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 juillet 2010 - 02:55 .

[Saibh]

Captain Jazz wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Right, of course. But being called "Hawke" doesn't define who you are. Nor is it more restrictive. Your race might now be down to human, but that's it--you're not being told who you are. Oh, and Bethany. She's there too.

Both race and name are very strong identifiers of who you are.

I am a human and my surname is Scott. Please, tell me everything you can deduce about me from these strong identifiers.

You had an ancestor who was Scottish. Or spoke that language.

Therefore, you are this:

http://www.reellifew.../braveheart.bmp

Hot or cold?

[Saibh]

Kordaris wrote...

Saibh wrote...

I vote they allow us to play as nugs next. I've felt too restricted, and I've always wanted to fight against the tyranny of our dwarven devourers! And Orlesian slave-keepers!

There's a limit on how much they can possibly let you choose and be

I think people would be fine with the same variety of choices(not the same but the same range) the had before even.
And the limit has been lowered.

I think most people don't care.

http://social.biowar...895/polls/8475/

[Saibh]

Kordaris wrote...

Saibh wrote...

I think most people don't care.

http://social.biowar...2895/polls/8475

Most people buy Modern Warfare.

Most people buying this game don't care.

[AlanC9]

Most MW players don't take polls on this site.

[Riona45]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'd find this line of argument a hell of a lot more convincing if I hadn't played plenty of CRPGs, even great CRPGs, where I had a predefined character. I suppose the epitome would be PS:T, where you couldn't change appearance, sex, or name. Plenty more, but we don't really need to get into lists.

Yeah, KOTOR made me be a human Jedi.  You could choose class and gender but not race or backstory.  And you know, that particular PC turned out to be so mediocre...

Modifié par Riona45, 25 juillet 2010 - 02:58 .

[Captain Jazz]

Saibh wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Right, of course. But being called "Hawke" doesn't define who you are. Nor is it more restrictive. Your race might now be down to human, but that's it--you're not being told who you are. Oh, and Bethany. She's there too.

Both race and name are very strong identifiers of who you are.

I am a human and my surname is Scott. Please, tell me everything you can deduce about me from these strong identifiers.

You had an ancestor who was Scottish. Or spoke that language.

Therefore, you are this:

[snippety]

Hot or cold?

Frozen! (Although a small portion of my face looks similar to the corresponding portion of "Wallace's" face... kinda scary actually, there may be sense in this after all )