1279 réponses à ce sujet

[Riona45]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

One major difference is that they appear to have fiddled with the game rules to balance the game and produce "fun" in DAO (they're certainly doing this in DA2), whereas in BG they did try to stay as true to AD&D rules as they could.
I don't think great games need to use any particular ruleset, but I do think the ruleset should be coherent and then have th game designed around it.

How big a difference is that, really? Presumably TSR went through their own fiddling with the rules phase at some point.. And IIRC Bio did throw out some of the AD&D rules, notably CON loss for resurrection and demi-human level limits.

Since we are up to the 4th edition of D&D rules, plenty of fiddling (including fiddling in the name of balance) has been done to those rules by whichever company owns them (currently that would be Wizards of the Coast).  This always pleases some and annoys others.

Modifié par Riona45, 26 septembre 2010 - 10:10 .

[Riona45]

Saibh wrote...


You're free to disregard this, since I can't scrounge up the source, but the devs have told us Hawke is less pre-defined than Shepard was.

Will it help if I back you up on this and say I've seen the developers say that?

[Riona45]

foodstuffs wrote...
BG 2 characters felt alive, DA:O characters did not.  BG 2 characters interacted with the world, with you, and with each other, sometimes to the point of violence.  I can't tell you how many times I felt Allistair should have just reached out and gutted Morrigan, but nothing ever happened to her.  It was like she was his dominatrix, and he secretly enjoyed it.  DA:O characters knew they were sidekicks and nothing more, the few lines they spoke during a plot conversation, with Kolgrim for example, provided for no concequences.  In the BG series, the party characters might actually attack eachother, or even an npc.  BG characters felt alive, DA:O characters felt comatose.  DA:O characters felt like very little more than a page in an encyclopedia. 

You're overstating the point, I think--I've played BG2 many times and the NPCs were no less your "sidekicks" in that game than they were in DA:O.  And lets not forget that there are instances in DA:O were your companions will attack you if you make certain choices (if that's so very important to you).  In BG2 the "surprise attacks" did occur, yes, but only rarely, and maybe never depending on who you took with you and what choices you made.

Also, have you forgotten that you couldn't even converse with the BG2 party members unless they decided to speak to you first?  People on this forum often say they hate how DA:O's expansion and DLC don't let you talk to your companions as much.  I played the BG games many times and loved them, but please, people, remove your Nostalgia Filters.  In terms of character interaction, BioWare's newer games are much better.

Modifié par Riona45, 26 septembre 2010 - 10:32 .

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Acting is a performance.  You're judged not on what you do, but on how well you do it.  It's entirely unlike roleplaying in a CPRG.

Acting is playing a role. If Martin Landau can own Bela Lugosi - and is is a role not an imitiation- then your Shep, which you have epically more control over than his Lugosi, should be a snap.

You are limiting yourself because if you can't 100% control everything about your role you can't manage it. That's pitiful. You can own any role you want but you just decided to stamp your feet about Shep and not bother.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Are you honestly saying that neither the words nor their delivery is relevant to the speaker's personality?  How then did you define Shepard's personaltiy if not in dialogue?

Whether people understand you 9or me) is immaterial.  The question is, did you get to say what you wanted to say?  Did your character ever do something you specifically wanted him to avoid doing?

In a CRPG yes, both things are irrelevant. You aren't picking words or tones. You are picking reactions and intent. How "I'll help" is phrased doesn't matter because you can't control that. I know you want to just ignore the words on the screen and have a play in your head but the game responds to the words on the screen. You can't escape the writer's intent unless you just really ignore the game in total.

As for specifically do something I didn't want, of course but then again I can think of more cases in DAO than in ME2 of that happening. That's what happens in CRPG's when you have a set of paths built for you and you can't just pick anything like you could in a real world RPG.

[Riona45]

jonv1234 wrote...
If BG games were as immersive as they are, and they are, why the need for VO characters now? It is merely a compromise made to appease the younger gamers who have not experienced the older games. This is not to say that it is wrong per se, and someone who feels that it is an improvement is welcome to that opinion.

How do you know that?

Also, you may take comfort in the elitist idea that only younger, newer gamers would disagree with your opinions, but I can assure you that that is not the case.  There are people who have played these older games who disagree with you.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that DA2 needs a voice-acted protagonist, but I think it's a good idea and don't think the franchise is ruined for it either.

Modifié par Riona45, 26 septembre 2010 - 10:25 .

[The Masked Rog]

If BG games were as immersive as they are, and they are, why the need for VO characters now? It is merely a compromise made to appease the younger gamers who have not experienced the older games. This is not to say that it is wrong per se, and someone who feels that it is an improvement is welcome to that opinion.

So because a game was good all future gams should just be rehashes of it? Let's face the truth here, BG was a good game for it's time, but it was far from perfect. Better graphics do improve the immersion. VO improves the immersion. Player voice over is a relatively new thing in rpg, so while I can't for an assessment about it right now I liked the ME series.There is a reason young people (and plenty of old people) like the new Vo and shiny graphics and streamlined combat. It makes for a more fun experience (for them). It does not mean they are dumb or suffer from any kind of attention disorder (though it's alright if some of them do, and these people should be respected as well). It's like saying that because Shakespeare was good everbody should try to mimick him. Things evolve. You either accept that and go with the flow or simply play the things you liked again. Win Win.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Then why all the sturm und drang with regards to Hawke?  Is it solely because Hawke is going to be voiced?

The voice combined with the dialogue wheel, yes.

Not that the shape of the conversation UI matters, but the wheel ensures that we can't see the actual line the PC is going to use.

As implemented in ME, we didn't now what Shepard was going to say (or do), and that line we didn't select was then delivered in a way over which we had no control.

Both of those are entirely different from how dialogue worked in DAO, KotOR, JE, NWN, or BG.

The question I need answered before I can accept the game (and I almost certainly can't answer the question without playing the game) is to what extent I will still be able to determine what Hawke says and how he says it, particularly in those cases where those details are relevant to his personality.  And if I do have control over his personality, then BioWare can't know which details are relevant, so the system would then have to allow that level of free choice on every single dialogue option in the game.

And it doesn't bother you that in more traditional RPGs, you still can only ever select from a list of prewritten responses?  When I play tabletop RPGs I certainly don't have to do that...I can just say whatever I think my character would say, using the exact words I want.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Riona45 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Then why all the sturm und drang with regards to Hawke?  Is it solely because Hawke is going to be voiced?

The voice combined with the dialogue wheel, yes.

Not that the shape of the conversation UI matters, but the wheel ensures that we can't see the actual line the PC is going to use.

As implemented in ME, we didn't now what Shepard was going to say (or do), and that line we didn't select was then delivered in a way over which we had no control.

Both of those are entirely different from how dialogue worked in DAO, KotOR, JE, NWN, or BG.

The question I need answered before I can accept the game (and I almost certainly can't answer the question without playing the game) is to what extent I will still be able to determine what Hawke says and how he says it, particularly in those cases where those details are relevant to his personality.  And if I do have control over his personality, then BioWare can't know which details are relevant, so the system would then have to allow that level of free choice on every single dialogue option in the game.

And it doesn't bother you that in more traditional RPGs, you still can only ever select from a list of prewritten responses?  When I play tabletop RPGs I certainly don't have to do that...I can just say whatever I think my character would say, using the exact words I want.

With prewritten choices the player at least has the choice on tone and can decide for him/herself how the line is said. Kinda hard to do that with predetermined voice overs.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
With prewritten choices the player at least has the choice on tone and can decide for him/herself how the line is said. Kinda hard to do that with predetermined voice overs.

This has been debated before but there are still issues when the NPCs respond in a way inconsistent with the tone in your head. It certainly happened to me in DAO. I know Sylvius for one has said he then factors that response into his story that he's constructing in his head but I for one can't do that.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
With prewritten choices the player at least has the choice on tone and can decide for him/herself how the line is said. Kinda hard to do that with predetermined voice overs.

This has been debated before but there are still issues when the NPCs respond in a way inconsistent with the tone in your head. It certainly happened to me in DAO. I know Sylvius for one has said he then factors that response into his story that he's constructing in his head but I for one can't do that.

Why not? Isn't that essentially role playing that character? Or a better question I think, do you want to play the game and actually use your brain to establish connections between your characters and companions and various other factors in the game world, or do you essentially want it all laid out for you and you just occasionally click to move an predetermined narrative along? Thats how ME2 felt to me anyway, in that no matter what dialog choice I selected, it didn't matter because 9 out of 10 times it barely matched even remotely what "I" would have said as Shepard. tone/content etc al.

[Riona45]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Or a better question I think, do you want to play the game and actually use your brain to establish connections between your characters and companions and various other factors in the game world, or do you essentially want it all laid out for you and you just occasionally click to move an predetermined narrative along?

Actually that's a very loaded question.

Modifié par Riona45, 27 septembre 2010 - 02:10 .

[Sidney]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
With prewritten choices the player at least has the choice on tone and can decide for him/herself how the line is said. Kinda hard to do that with predetermined voice overs.

This has been debated before but there are still issues when the NPCs respond in a way inconsistent with the tone in your head. It certainly happened to me in DAO. I know Sylvius for one has said he then factors that response into his story that he's constructing in his head but I for one can't do that.

Why not? Isn't that essentially role playing that character? Or a better question I think, do you want to play the game and actually use your brain to establish connections between your characters and companions and various other factors in the game world, or do you essentially want it all laid out for you and you just occasionally click to move an predetermined narrative along?

No that's not role playing, that's ignoring reality. You can pretend all kinds of crap in your mind but the problem is the world does exist. It responds in set ways based on the dialog presented and the existing dialog is the only one that makes the game make sense. You can pretend all kinds of things. Example: DAO it is time to decide to save Recliffe. The game gives you a set of 4 lousy options of dialog. Do anything to save Recliffe = loss of approval from Morri. Now, I might imagine that my most sinister mage says "I'll save the village" and then pulls Morri aside and says "Listen dear, these people are weak scum but the big powerful man with a nice army we need to gain power won't help us if the village burns so we need to suck it up in the name of might and power...ok?" You know what that little imaginary dialog does for me...nothing. I tell Leli "I love shoes" but in my head i say it in sarcastic way like, "Oh yeah, great I love shoes you stupid $%^&". Now maybe she does misunderstand that when I call her a $%^& it isn't a term of endearment but sadly I don't assume she's that dumb and so again the world becomes non-responsive to my desires. The problem is I like being able to control the game. I enjoy the ILLUSION of control that I am given and the more I fight the game world the more obvious it becomes I have no control.

CRPG's are not about total freedom, never have been. They are an amped up choose your own adventure book with a leveling side game

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tsuga C wrote...

Actors are on a completely fixed path. RPGs are supposed to offer a number of choices, preferably ones that have consequences for the storyline and the world in which you are playing.

This.

Actors are told what to say and what emotions to convey.  How they di that it up to them, but they get very little say in what their character does.

RPGs do offer those choices.  And if they were to offer a pre-set character with a pre-defined personality, they would need to give the player nearly total knowledge of that character in order to make reasoned decisions on that character's behalf.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Why not?

Perhaps because the game has led me to anticipate a certain response by the characterisation of the NPC. If the response is completely unexpected and obviously not what was planned for then I don't then have the chance to follow that up because the game designers were obviously taking a different route.

[Biotic Budah]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Tsuga C wrote...

Actors are on a completely fixed path. RPGs are supposed to offer a number of choices, preferably ones that have consequences for the storyline and the world in which you are playing.

This.

Actors are told what to say and what emotions to convey.  How they di that it up to them, but they get very little say in what their character does.

RPGs do offer those choices.  And if they were to offer a pre-set character with a pre-defined personality, they would need to give the player nearly total knowledge of that character in order to make reasoned decisions on that character's behalf.

But they can act out a scene in a number of ways with different voice inflection. Case in point, when Alistar visits Goldanna. Her voice inflection is either cross or truculant, and depending on which you get depends on whether or not Alistar tries to shake you down for 15 sovereigns. 

[Bryy_Miller]

I can't believe that this is actually a conversation about what constitutes an imagination.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 27 septembre 2010 - 04:24 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

Acting is playing a role. If Martin Landau can own Bela Lugosi - and is is a role not an imitiation- then your Shep, which you have epically more control over than his Lugosi, should be a snap.

Landau had infinitely more information about Lugosi that the ME player does about Shepard.  How would you
suggest that player is supposed to know how to play Shepard in the absence of that information?

Plus, he knew what he was going to say and how he was going to say it.

You are limiting yourself because if you can't 100% control everything about your role you can't manage it. That's pitiful. You can own any role you want but you just decided to stamp your feet about Shep and not bother.

I tried to roleplay Shepard, but Shepard routinely behaved in ways I didn't select (and wouldn't have given the option).

I even asked for help.  If you have any tips, I'm listening.

Sidney wrote...

In a CRPG yes, both things are irrelevant. You aren't picking words or tones. You are picking reactions and intent.

Intent, yes.  But reactions?  You can't control people's ractions.  My characters don't have special mind-control abilities,

How "I'll help" is phrased doesn't matter because you can't control that.

Yes you can.  In every game without a voiced protagonist you can control exactly that.  The dialogue options are an abstraction, whether they're written out sentences or just keywords.

I know you want to just ignore the words on the screen and have a play in your head but the game responds to the words on the screen. You can't escape the writer's intent unless you just really ignore the game in total.

I'm not ignoring that happens on screen.  I'm accepting it for what it is, just like hit points or levels or THAC0.  They're abstractions to allow the game to work without delving into needless minutia.

As soon as we stop using abstractions, either we need all that minutia or we suddenly stop modelling anything resembling reality.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 septembre 2010 - 05:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Masked Rog wrote...

So because a game was good all future gams should just be rehashes of it? Let's face the truth here, BG was a good game for it's time, but it was far from perfect. Better graphics do improve the immersion.

Being able to see rotate the perspective to see around corners improves immersion.  NWN gave us that.  Every graphical advancement since has been a waste of resources.

Riona45 wrote...

And it doesn't bother you that in more traditional RPGs, you still can only ever select from a list of prewritten responses?

See my response to Sidney, above, about abstraction.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 septembre 2010 - 05:40 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

This has been debated before but there are still issues when the NPCs respond in a way inconsistent with the tone in your head. It certainly happened to me in DAO. I know Sylvius for one has said he then factors that response into his story that he's constructing in his head but I for one can't do that.

I do that because the reaction of the NPCs has nothing at all to do with how my character behaved.  It can't.  To do so would require reverse causality, where the effect preceded the cause.

Biotic Budah wrote...

But they can act out a scene in a number of ways with different voice inflection.

As I said.  How they do that is up to them.

And you still haven't addressed the knowledge gap I mentioned.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 septembre 2010 - 05:44 .

[The Edge]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I can't believe that this is actually a conversation about what constitutes an imagination.

Imagination is obviously made up of rainbows

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

How big a difference is that, really? Presumably TSR went through their own fiddling with the rules phase at some point.. And IIRC Bio did throw out some of the AD&D rules, notably CON loss for resurrection and demi-human level limits.

The difference is one of coherence.

Bio did wilfully throw out some rules (like the permanent CON loss), but also just missed on some.  For example, they allowed a saving throw for Command, which it shouldn't have had - and that would have made the low-level game quite a bit easier.  I don't know if you ever fought Greywolf as a level 1 party, but that was a very tough (but winnable fight).  But if you'd been able to render Greywolf unconscious for one round, thus allowing you to have everyone attack him - with guaranteed hits - for an entire round, the fight actually becomes quite simple (particularly if you've equipped everyone with darts).

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I tried to roleplay Shepard, but Shepard routinely behaved in ways I didn't select (and wouldn't have given the option).

I even asked for help.  If you have any tips, I'm listening.

Yes you can.  In every game without a voiced protagonist you can control exactly that.  The dialogue options are an abstraction, whether they're written out sentences or just keywords.

Give me 2 examples where Shep didn't do what you wanted and I'll help you out.

The dialog is an input mask but the NPC's react to that dialog as it is written. That's why no matter how you say or want to say X or Y the people you speak to will always repsond properly ONLY to the written dialog. Unless your made up dialog precisely matches the written dialog you are screwed. There is no way to save Recliffe in the name of power and selfish interests. You can not create that reality no matter how much you want to pretend you can in your mind. The notion that the printed dialog is less restrictive than the VA dialog is silly. In both cases writers control how your character acts. You are just oblivious to that.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Landau had infinitely more information about Lugosi that the ME player does about Shepard.  How would you
suggest that player is supposed to know how to play Shepard in the absence of that information?

Plus, he knew what he was going to say and how he was going to say it.

You don't have to know what Shep would do because you can't - you define what Shep does. The notion that you can not interpret a character because of his speech, appearance, gestures, dress or any other factors though is wrong.

Landau has a template. Lugosi has a voice, he has gestures, he has an appearance that are all set within basic lines but within that reality Landau can play him in a number of ways. You can read Landau, for example, talkaing about how he took on the role of Lugosi and made it more than just an imitation here.  He doesn't know what Lugosi would do in his house when watching a movie with Ed Wood. You would lose your mind and storm off the set, Landau knows how to play a role even with boundaries and make the character behave how he interprets him.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius, wouldn't Greywolf get a save anyway? Walkthrough says he's level 7.