925 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Oh yes the game can change it, and it does. In pretty much every single existing RPG to date. All responses are tailored by the writers, and they all contain their own connotations that can be seen in the reactions of the NPCs. If you imagine differently in your head, that does a lot for your own experience but it changes absolutely nothing about how the game was designed and implimented.

That's the beauty of it; it doesn't require design zots.  The gameplay is an emergent feature.

And I don't believe in connotation.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Oh yes the game can change it, and it does. In pretty much every single existing RPG to date. All responses are tailored by the writers, and they all contain their own connotations that can be seen in the reactions of the NPCs. If you imagine differently in your head, that does a lot for your own experience but it changes absolutely nothing about how the game was designed and implimented.

That's the beauty of it; it doesn't require design zots.  The gameplay is an emergent feature.

Well then the same goes for pregen characters. I can fill in all the details I like about the character's past. It's not any harder than what you do with the confliciting responses.

[shootist70]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No, it isn't roleplaying.  If you don't know the character you're playing, you cannot roleplay him.

That doesn't make sense. If it did, fiction would never work, because the same concept of character identification applies. Decent fiction makes you care about your protag through use of empathy, sympathy and character incluing. RPG's don't differ here in the slightest, even if you created the character yourself - they still have to overcome the same dramatic problems. No RPG offers a 100% sandbox world were you create via your own actions the dramatic problems that drive the overall narrative.

In answer to your previous question about voice-over, it's a powerful device (if well acted) for making a character immediately recognisable and concrete - something that can take a writer many thousands of words to replicate.

[SirOccam]

MerinTB wrote...

That's like saying an apple is different from a pear, a tomato, a bananna and a head of lettuce because an apple is a fruit.  Being a fruit is part of the apple, but it is also part of the pear, tomato and bananna.  Or, even further into my comparison, it is like you are saying you like apples but think the sweetness and crunchiness need to go, but you like how you can chew it and it gives you nourishment.  While you can chew and get nourishment from an apple, the sweetness and crunchiness are kind of very typical traits of an apple and you can get other food to chew and receive nourishment.

I think what a lot of us are saying is that we'd like an apple with no skin. And other people are saying that apples MUST have the skin on or else it's not a true apple.

"Well that's ridiculous," we say, "of course it's still an apple."

"Nonsense," they respond. "What you truly want is an orange."

"No, an orange is nothing like a skinless apple; don't tell me what I want."

And so on.

See, we don't see a clunky inventory or pointless side quests or other tedium as central to the essence of an RPG. They're the distasteful outer shell that detracts from the overall experience. They are something one puts up with, but does not relish. And now some of us are simply asking...why should we put up with it? Why can't someone make an apple with no skin?

I think I've overused that particular metaphor enough, but hopefully it's more clear.

[quicksilver_502]

first of all, may i congratulate your bravery and foolhardiness in starting such a topic round these here parts. still, i'm sympathetic to what you mean. there are elements of traditional rpgs that are clunky and unfun. however, while i personally liked the changes in ME2, going quite that far in DA2 would be a mistake since they have different types of gameplay, ME being more actiony. as far as i can see, the developers are streamlining (yes i said it) the right amount, removing some of the clunkier elements without removing the tactical play. of course, none of us have seen nearly enough of the gameto form judgements.

[HarryThePlotter]

shootist70 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No, it isn't roleplaying.  If you don't know the character you're playing, you cannot roleplay him.

That doesn't make sense. If it did, fiction would never work, because the same concept of character identification applies. Decent fiction makes you care about your protag through use of empathy, sympathy and character incluing. RPG's don't differ here in the slightest, even if you created the character yourself - they still have to overcome the same dramatic problems. No RPG offers a 100% sandbox world were you create via your own actions the dramatic problems that drive the overall narrative.

In answer to your previous question about voice-over, it's a powerful device (if well acted) for making a character immediately recognisable and concrete - something that can take a writer many thousands of words to replicate.

What about Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls and Mount and Blade? They all have scripted Quests but You can in fact drive the Narrative regardless.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Well then the same goes for pregen characters. I can fill in all the details I like about the character's past. It's not any harder than what you do with the confliciting responses.

The problem is when my character behaves differently from how I would have chosen.  This happened all the time in ME, but almost never in any previous BioWare RPG or DAO.

The responses from the NPCs don't matter at all.  I don't care how they react.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Well then the same goes for pregen characters. I can fill in all the details I like about the character's past. It's not any harder than what you do with the confliciting responses.

The problem is when my character behaves differently from how I would have chosen.  This happened all the time in ME, but almost never in any previous BioWare RPG or DAO.

The responses from the NPCs don't matter at all.  I don't care how they react.

Then what is creating the problem for you is having the caracter voiced and acting outside the options you choose. That is not a mandatory requirement for pregen characters.

[Sylvius the Mad]

shootist70 wrote...

That doesn't make sense. If it did, fiction would never work, because the same concept of character identification applies.  Decent fiction makes you care about your protag through use of empathy, sympathy and character incluing.

Yes, but it only works on some readers.  Have you never read a book where you disliked the protagonist (for any reason), but you knew others who had enjoyed the book?  I find this happens all the time.  Jane Austen and Toni Morrison are two authors who seem to excel at writing protagonists I either dislike or am entirely indifferent toward.

But RPGs, if they let you create the character yourself, and guaranteed to provide you with a character you find compelling.

RPG's don't differ here in the slightest, even if you created the character yourself - they still have to overcome the same dramatic problems. No RPG offers a 100% sandbox world were you create via your own actions the dramatic problems that drive the overall narrative.

The actions don't matter.  How about the thoughts and reactions of your character?  How does he feel about what was just said to him?  Does he believe the story he was just told?  These are questions that need to be answered by the player, and those answers cannot be later contradicted by the game.

In answer to your previous question about voice-over, it's a powerful device (if well acted) for making a character immediately recognisable and concrete - something that can take a writer many thousands of words to replicate.

And it can also instantly make a character someone I don't want to play, and one who conflicts with my design.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Then what is creating the problem for you is having the caracter voiced and acting outside the options you choose. That is not a mandatory requirement for pregen characters.

If they're not doing that then they're not meaningfully pregen characters.  I wouldn't call the Nameless One a pregen character.  Yes, I didn't get to select his gender, appearance, or even his name, but I did get to construct his personality.

That's all I need for the character to be mine.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Then what is creating the problem for you is having the caracter voiced and acting outside the options you choose. That is not a mandatory requirement for pregen characters.

If they're not doing that then they're not meaningfully pregen characters.  I wouldn't call the Nameless One a pregen character.  Yes, I didn't get to select his gender, appearance, or even his name, but I did get to construct his personality.

That's all I need for the character to be mine.

So you're selectively defining "pregen." You do that a lot. You should let me know ahead of time when you do to avoid all.... this.

[shootist70]

shootist70 wrote...

What about Fallout 3, Elder Scrolls and Mount and Blade? They all have scripted Quests but You can in fact drive the Narrative regardless.

I said create the narrative, not choose how you want to drive a pre-existing one. Ultimately, in any RPG, your character's overall goals will be the same as any others. There is no real individuality, so it's not a huge loss if, say, you have a voice-over, or limited choice of character creation. The solid benefits of character identification that these things carry far outweigh any fuzzy illusion of 'individuality.'

Take The Witcher as an example. I had some reservations about a completely pre-set character when starting the game, and even though Geralt ain't exactly hugely charismatic I found that his unique identity within the gameworld made him concrete enough to constitute a believable character that I could care about. It added bucketloads of immersion to the overall story. It's damned hard to replicate that with a blank-slate character.

Modifié par shootist70, 30 août 2010 - 10:49 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

shootist70 wrote...

I said create the narrative, not choose how you want to drive a pre-existing one. Ultimately, in any RPG, your character's overall goals will be the same as any others.

That's not true at all.  What your character is trying to do (and why) is entirely up to you.  What is does do is limited to the pre-written options, but the game doesn't know why he's doing those things, or whether they're his ultimate goal, or how he feels about anything he's done in the game.

KotOR is a great example.  I think there are a great many different (and mutually exclusive) reasons why some character might choose the dark side ending in that game based on how he felt about the revelation about his past.  From the game's perspective all those characters did the same thing, but from the player's perspective those characters were all very different.

There was a moment in the mage origin in DAO where I was playing through it with a second character, and her impression of a specific conversation - wherein she chose exactly the same dialogue options as my previous character has - was entirely dissimilar from that of the other character.  But again, from the game's point of view nothing at all had changed.

The fun in RPG, for me, is in creating a character's personality, and then seeing how that personality handles or adapts to the events it experiences.  That's the core of my RPG experience.

[shootist70]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, but it only works on some readers.  Have you never read a book where you disliked the protagonist (for any reason), but you knew others who had enjoyed the book?  I find this happens all the time.  Jane Austen and Toni Morrison are two authors who seem to excel at writing protagonists I either dislike or am entirely indifferent toward.

It's still the same. We writers know this: that your reader does NOT have to like the protag, but you STILL have to make your reader identify with him. In fact those sort of protags are often the most powerful, but by far the most difficult to write.

The actions don't matter.  How about the thoughts and reactions of your character?  How does he feel about what was just said to him?  Does he believe the story he was just told?  These are questions that need to be answered by the player, and those answers cannot be later contradicted by the game.

Even film and fiction are always going to leave you filling in certain gaps for yourself - it's part of what brings a creation to life - invoking the imagination about the character. If the writer can achieve that then it's a job well done. That's not to say that a writer can ever leave a player/reader to do that for themself, and it certainly doesn't justify leaving the player to do that. The chances are an accomplished writer can create something far more powerful than most players could.

[Sylvius the Mad]

shootist70 wrote...

It's still the same. We writers know this: that your reader does NOT have to like the protag, but you STILL have to make your reader identify with him. In fact those sort of protags are often the most powerful, but by far the most difficult to write.

I hate those books.  Because if i dislike them then I don't identify with them.  How could I?  I like me, so anyone who is relevantly similar to me (and thus someone with whom I can identify) will be someone I like.

The chances are an accomplished writer can create something far more powerful than most players could.

Not for me.  I am the audience, so I am uniquely suited to construct characters I find compelling.  I can't necessarily construct characters you find compelling, so I don't try.

[shootist70]

Well, they're you're preferences, so I'm not going to argue with that. Universally speaking, though, it doesn't work that way

[Sylvius the Mad]

Universally speaking, nothing works any way. Universals don't have exceptions.

[shootist70]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Universally speaking, nothing works any way. Universals don't have exceptions.

Rhetorical. You will never change my mind on this either. If it were true we wouldn't have been using some of the same dramatic concepts for over two thousand years now.

[Maconbar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

It's still the same. We writers know this: that your reader does NOT have to like the protag, but you STILL have to make your reader identify with him. In fact those sort of protags are often the most powerful, but by far the most difficult to write.

I hate those books.  Because if i dislike them then I don't identify with them.  How could I?  I like me, so anyone who is relevantly similar to me (and thus someone with whom I can identify) will be someone I like.

The chances are an accomplished writer can create something far more powerful than most players could.

Not for me.  I am the audience, so I am uniquely suited to construct characters I find compelling.  I can't necessarily construct characters you find compelling, so I don't try.

So the audience creates the characters? How does that work?

[MerinTB]

Tirigon wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...
I'm still trying to understand the "RPGs shouldn't have stats, looting or abilities" mentality.

You must be rather limited mentally not to manage that.

It´s really not hard: I play a game like Dragon Age because games I prefer gameplay-wise (such as halo, StarCraft2, DotA, AvP...) do not offer roleplaying opportunities. I do NOT play it for stats, looting, skill-based combat (maybe even with dice rolls to make the sh!t complete:sick:) etc... In fact I force myself to accept the Bullsh!t to be able to roleplay.

It´s like, if you walk through a pile of crap because behind it there is a treasure. You walk right in the crap because it´s the only way to get what you want, but is it really hard to understand that you would prefer if the treasure was located in a pleasing place instead?

You don't want an RPG - you want a hack n slash, maybe.  RPGs are about playing a role you create, cRPGs have traditions that define the genre (more or less) -
you want shooters and RTS's with story.  They exist.  And are not cRPGs.

NOT A SINGLE shooter or RTS game I know allows you to play a role you create. If you know one, please, PLEASE tell me about it so I can finally get the game I want.

Until you do I shall consider you as defeated by my arguments because it seems you are metally unable to understand a word of what I say.

Why bother?  You are just going to insult me like you keep insulting people - ad hominems don't strengthen your argument, they weaken your position - and then you will special plead why my examples are not true examples.

But here goes -
Many argue that Mass Effect is a cRPG.  I'm on the fence, but for argument's sake let's say it is.  It's sold as an RPG, it's described by reviewers, fans and sites like wikipedia as an RPG.  So it's an RPG.
Mass Effect is a shooter.  Third person shooter, but a shooter.
You "create" your version of Shepard.  There's one.

Vampire:The Masquerade - Bloodlines.  It uses the Half-Life 2 engine.  You can run and gun in third or first person.  It's most certainly an RPG, but it is also a shooter (if you use guns.)

Spellforce is an RTS / RPG hybrid.  You create a character at the start of the game (race, class, abilities, name) but most of the game is played as an RTS.  I have never played it.  I bet it is far more RTS than RPG (at least as I would see it) but you wanted to create your character.

Try Alpha Protocol.  If DA2 and ME1 & ME2 can be RPGs, then Alpha Protocol is an RPG.  Again, I'm on the fence there about it really being an RPG, but anywho.  You create your version of Mike Thorton and play him as you like, but it is like a Splinter Cell or Rainbow Six type game otherwise.

Here's the trick, though - once you can either create a character or level-up/change a character over time, most people will label that game an RPG.  So if you are looking for a Shooter or an RTS that allows you to create a character and develop them throughout the game but not have it labeled an RPG, you are out of luck.

But that's the last I'll be answering you - at least until I see you are no longer insulting people.

[RampantBeaver]

All they need to change for DA2 is the god-awfull combat mechanics present in DA:O. I don't care if they witchefy it and it becomes an action RPG, hell I prefer action RPG's, just no more missing frozen imobile characters!

[MerinTB]

SirOccam wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
That's like saying an apple is different from a pear, a tomato, a bananna and a head of lettuce because an apple is a fruit.  Being a fruit is part of the apple, but it is also part of the pear, tomato and bananna.  Or, even further into my comparison, it is like you are saying you like apples but think the sweetness and crunchiness need to go, but you like how you can chew it and it gives you nourishment.  While you can chew and get nourishment from an apple, the sweetness and crunchiness are kind of very typical traits of an apple and you can get other food to chew and receive nourishment.

I think what a lot of us are saying is that we'd like an apple with no skin. And other people are saying that apples MUST have the skin on or else it's not a true apple.

"Well that's ridiculous," we say, "of course it's still an apple."

"Nonsense," they respond. "What you truly want is an orange."

"No, an orange is nothing like a skinless apple; don't tell me what I want."

And so on.

Okay, I'm rarely one to call out bad analogies because I can usually see what people are getting at.  But for a metaphor / analogy to work, you have to be comparing like things or things with similar qualities.

You did NOT.  You took my choice of fruit as an analog and set up a straw man.

Let me explain as briefly as I can:
I was talking about elements of a game that are shared across genres.  So I translated that into elements of food that are shared across different types of food. 
It's simple logic -
if group A (apples) are a subset of group B (fruit) and you are trying to show that it is different from group's D, E, F,and G (pear, tomato, bananna, lettuce) because it is in group B (fruit) you have proven nothing because D, E, and F are all in group B as well and your statement is false.
if group 1 (apples) has properties W (sweetness), X (crunchiness), Y (chewiness) and Z (nourishing) but you want something that has the properties Y and Z but not W and X, any search engine would eliminate apples from your search.

What you did was to say-
apples have a skin naturally, but can have the skin stripped from them artificially
you say you want apples without skins but somehow we are refusing to accept that the skin can be removed
and further showing signs of our disconnect from reality we tell you that if you are looking for skinless apples you should get an orange, which is clearly not an apple AND HAS A THICKER SKIN.

THAT, Sir Occam, would be like me telling the person who wants character creation with a shooter mechanic but no inventory to play an old Infocom text adventure ( a game that you don't make a character for, is text based so certainly isn't a shooter, and is all about collecting a ridiculous amount of items.)

You attempt at an analogy both sets up a straw man (no one was saying that apples cannot have skins, and no one was saying that an RPG needs any one mechanic) and makes people making my argument seem like jerks (you want no skin on your apple?  then have a different fruit with a thicker skin HA!)

See, we don't see a clunky inventory or pointless side quests or other tedium as central to the essence of an RPG. They're the distasteful outer shell that detracts from the overall experience. They are something one puts up with, but does not relish. And now some of us are simply asking...why should we put up with it? Why can't someone make an apple with no skin?

Again, see above.  No one told the guy who wanted the skin off his apple to eat an orange.
There is no "sacred cow" element to RPGs for most people, seriously, just elements that are so common to RPGs and so rare to non-RPGs that they pretty much define the genre.  Inventory is not an RPG element either, really, as again adventure games and shooter games have inventories as well.

I think I've overused that particular metaphor enough, but hopefully it's more clear.

It was actually obsfucating.

[Lusitanum]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Some of us enjoy making up the
hero.  That's the fun part.  The reason I play games rather than watch
movies is because I want to have some hand in the creation of the
story.  I want to be able to explore all the possible characters who
could fill this role in the story, and that list becomes shorter and
shorter the more the games match your description.

And the reason why games are surpassing movies, and why we'd rather play rather than watch them is that it's got all these wonderful new ways of telling a story and the possibility of diverging it through different paths through the story.

Of course, all of that is thrown to the garbage when you compare any random movie character to a protagonist that has no voice, no emotion and no ability to create any kind of empathy outside of those grown children who still feel a thrill when they play with dolls.

I'm sorry, I don't know about you but I'm through the age of making voices in my head about how Sytherius, the Elf Mage, is going to beat the big bad meany. Nowadays, I'm more into a little thing called "character development" and I don't need to be the one giving the characters some generic personality when I can just enjoy a well-written and emotionally engaging character.

Sergius64 wrote...

The issue is that you already have
plenty to game genres that have set-in-stone PCs that should be
providing the story-fix for you guys. Why don't you pile on the devs who
make games of those genres to provide you with a better story along
with the filler on-rails gameplay they already have rather then attempt
to convert a genre who's whole definition is to provide customization
and choices?

Well, your issue is that there are already plenty of other games where you can play with dolls in a computer game that should be providing the imagining-fix for you guys? Why don't you just go back to playing Baldur's Gate and all that? 

Oh what's that? Because you want something new? Because the gaming industry can't possibly move forward if all we do is make the same damned game over and over again without ever trying to improve and cling desperately to old tropes that just drag the genre down? Well, OK, then I'm sorry I asked such a stupid question.

Tirigon wrote...

Lusitanum wrote...

 the single most boring and emotionless piece of wasted screentime in the whole narrative. For that, we already have Keanu Reeves.

The last sentence just rendered your entire post irrelevant and disqualified you from being taken seriously.

And the same happened with your entire statement since all you said is "you're wrong" and presented absolutely no reason to back up your claims. But still, nice attempt at trolling.

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz
wrote...

Is inventory the reason you play RPGs? (aimed at
Sylvius)

No.  My character is the reason I play RPGs.

To
me, the meaningful difference between ME and other BiOWare games was
that ME didn't let me play my character.  They let me watch
someone else's character.

I agree with this.
I have no
idea how many times I yelled:
I didnt want to do/say that!

And how many times have I said "that's great, none of the choices presented here are what I want to say".

Which wouldn't be such a problem with a defined character, but it's really annoying when you're being told "you have the power to create any character you want and do whatever you please" and most of the time, the options to do what I want to do aren't even there.

Maconbar
wrote...



So the audience creates the characters?
How does that work?

It doesn't, as fanfictions clearly show. Can you imagine the narrative horrors that goes in the head of half of these "creators" when given free reign to make up their own crazy stories about their characters?

*shuders*

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lusitanum wrote...

I'm sorry, I don't know about you but I'm through the age of making voices in my head about how Sytherius, the Elf Mage, is going to beat the big bad meany. Nowadays, I'm more into a little thing called "character development" and I don't need to be the one giving the characters some generic personality when I can just enjoy a well-written and emotionally engaging character.

If you find the character you designed generic, design him differently.

Its the design I enjoy.  It's the character development - that is, me developing a character - that I enjoy.

What you're describing is just watching the development of someone else's character.

And how many times have I said "that's great, none of the choices presented here are what I want to say".

Then you're playing in a way that sets you up for failure.

When someone voices this complaint, I find it's usually because he went a step too far when reacting to the dialogue and constructed a specific thing he wanted his PC to say.

Don't do that.  Instead, work our your PC's reaction, and then find the pre-written dialogue option that is consistent with that.  Not often is there only one thing your character could possibly say in a specific circumstance, but once you've chosen such a thing you'll likely be wed to it (it's a sort of confirmation bias).  So instead, determine your PC's impression of what just happened and what the NPC said, and then before choosing a line you'd like to say, read the options available to you and pick the one that suits your PC best.

Will you sometimes have problems?  Yes.  Will it be 80% of all lines uttered (like my problems in ME)?  No.

Which wouldn't be such a problem with a defined character, but it's really annoying when you're being told "you have the power to create any character you want and do whatever you please" and most of the time, the options to do what I want to do aren't even there.

No one is offering you a chance to do what ever you please.  I've njot asked for that.  No one is claiming that any game has given the player that kind of freedom.

No, we would like our characters to think and feel whatever we please.  What they do is something else entirely.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tirigon wrote...

NOT A SINGLE shooter or RTS game I know allows you to play a role you create. If you know one, please, PLEASE tell me about it so I can finally get the game I want.

I happily play a role I create every time I play Alpha Centauri (which is a turn-based strategy game from 1998).

I would argue that Alpha Centauri is more of an RPG than Mass Effect is, and no one thinks Alpha Centauri is an RPG.