1279 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

I'm not. I'm roleplaying.

So I'm not on a message board, instead, I am responding to posts?

If you're not even going to try to understand why are you bothering to participate?

I defined games.  That definition precludes roleplaying.  I've been perfectly clear.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I defined games.  That definition precludes roleplaying.  I've been perfectly clear.

Man. All these years of playing and GMing tabletop roleplaying games and I've been deceived all the time.

Just out of curiosity. How fun has your inflexible gameplay style been so far? Seeing your way of roleplaying, I'd say it's been an exercise in frustration. There is such a thing as compromise with the medium limitations.
Then again, I'm more of a rules lawyer than a thespian, so I enjoy the number crunching and character skill development (and the lack of a Combat Log or numbers in the tooltips of Dragon Age infuriated me, as I had to build my party in the blind).

Modifié par Xewaka, 03 octobre 2010 - 09:38 .

[JrayM16]

Xewaka wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I defined games.  That definition precludes roleplaying.  I've been perfectly clear.

Man. All these years of playing and GMing tabletop roleplaying games and I've been deceived all the time.

Just out of curiosity. How fun has your inflexible gameplay style been so far? Seeing your way of roleplaying, I'd say it's been an exercise in frustration. There is such a thing as compromise with the medium limitations.
Then again, I'm more of a rules lawyer than a thespian, so I enjoy the number crunching and character skill development (and the lack of a Combat Log or numbers in the tooltips of Dragon Age infuriated me, as I had to build my party in the blind).

QFT

[javierabegazo]

Sidney wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

I know I am not the most eloquent person and if you feel I am berating or insulting sorry that was not my intention and will just go back to lurking as usual.

No you are doing quite well Slyvious is an idiot that acts out scenes in front of his montor and that's that is "playing the game".

Blatant insults aren't tolerated here and while many go unseen, when I catch such argumentative and insulting posts as yours, I issue a temp ban as I have just done with you. Please remember to be respectuful in the forum, despite someone else's views. If you have a problem with another user, message a Moderator

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

Just out of curiosity. How fun has your inflexible gameplay style been so far?

Outside of Mass Effect, enormously.

All prior BioWare RPGs (BG, BG2, NWN, KotOR, JE, and DAO) accommodate my playstyle.

Seeing your way of roleplaying, I'd say it's been an exercise in frustration. There is such a thing as compromise with the medium limitations.

Until they added a voiced protagonist and hid the dialogue options behind a wheel, there were no relevant roleplaying limitations inside conversations.

Then again, I'm more of a rules lawyer than a thespian, so I enjoy the number crunching and character skill development (and the lack of a Combat Log or numbers in the tooltips of Dragon Age infuriated me, as I had to build my party in the blind).

I'll agree entirely with that.  The Detailed Tooltips mod dramatically increased my enjoyment of DAO.

The lack of a combat log made it very difficult to run controlled tests on weapon damage.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Until they added a voiced protagonist and hid the dialogue options behind a wheel, there were no relevant roleplaying limitations inside conversations.

The moment a dialogue system is in place, relevant roleplaying limitations exist. You cannot choose options outside those given, and I know I found myself wanting to say something unoffered in all prior Bioware cRPGs. Again, I approach CRPGs as games, rather than roleplaying experiences. Might be the GM in me, but I enjoy driving the overall plot  to an end and investigating the lore and setting more than developing a specific character, and CRPG are, in my opinion, much better suited for the first tasks than the last. Also, they facilitate the number crunching I tend to enjoy. Party optimization is part of the plot exploration.

Modifié par Xewaka, 03 octobre 2010 - 10:54 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

The moment a dialogue system is in place, relevant roleplaying limitations exist.

I'm tired of explaining why this isn't true.

You cannot choose options outside those given

Since the options given are abstractions (just like the keywords in Oblivion), they allow a great variety among and within them.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Since the options given are abstractions (just like the keywords in Oblivion), they allow a great variety among and within them.

Maybe it's a localization thing (as I'm spanish), but I fail to see abstractions in the dialogue choices. What I see are very structured and defined sentences. And sometimes the meaning is diametrically opposed to what I assume was the original intent of the sentence due to a localization ambiguity. Then again, english grammar is a mess and a pain to translate, as my last RPG corebook translation is proving.

Modifié par Xewaka, 03 octobre 2010 - 11:31 .

[JrayM16]

Xewaka wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Since the options given are abstractions (just like the keywords in Oblivion), they allow a great variety among and within them.

Maybe it's a localization thing (as I'm spanish), but I fail to see abstractions in the dialogue choices. What I see are very structured and defined sentences. And sometimes the meaning is diametrically opposed to what I assume was the original intent of the sentence due to a localization ambiguity. Then again, english grammar is a mess and a pain to translate, as my last RPG corebook translation is proving.

In English, they are also complete sentences.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

In English, they are also complete sentences.

Yes, but there's no reason to assume they're any less of an abstraction that they would be if they were just keywords.

[TheMufflon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, but there's no reason to assume they're any less of an abstraction that they would be if they were just keywords.

Except for the fact that NPC respond to a specific wording and tone.

The limitation is there, the fact that you choose to figurativly close your eyes, cover your ears and go "LALALALALA!" notwithstanding.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 04 octobre 2010 - 08:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

TheMufflon wrote...

Except for the fact that NPC respond to a specific wording and tone.

The NPC responds.  To what they respond is unknowable to us.

We're not mind-readers.

[TheMufflon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The NPC responds.  To what they respond is unknowable to us.

We're not mind-readers.

We don't have to be; the words are spelled out on the screen.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 04 octobre 2010 - 09:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

TheMufflon wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The NPC responds.  To what they respond is unknowable to us.

We're not mind-readers.

We don't have to be; the words are spelled out on the screen.

Only when the PC is voiced and conversations are acted out.

Otherwise they're just part of the UI, and the UI doesn't exist in the game world.  Again, dio you think the keywords in a game like Oblivion represents the exact workds uttered by the PC?

Of course you don't.  So why do you thik that of the lines on DAO.

And regardless, the tone certainly isn't printed on the screen.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

TheMufflon wrote...

Except for the fact that NPC respond to a specific wording and tone.

The NPC responds.  To what they respond is unknowable to us.

We're not mind-readers.

However, when the writers wrote said response, they did so with a certain tone of the PC's statement in mind.  While I agree that there is some level of figurative roleplaying, it is ultimately limited by how it is perceived.  If it were true "roleplaying" I would have the option to clarifym my statement and intent to the NPC as in real life.  However, this true "roleplaying" does not exist.  No roleplaying can get that in depth, it is impossible.

[the_one_54321]

Because the writers have a particular kind of statement in mind when they write the responses of the NPCs. The notion that text is entirely a part of the UI is a construct you've developed within your own mind and that does not exist in the production of the game. There's nothing wrong with that, but you should not imply that it is the basis of dialog in the game. It is not. The opposite is. Conclusively, as stated by the people that made the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

However, when the writers wrote said response, they did so with a certain tone of the PC's statement in mind.

I'd say they wrote it with a certain interpretation of the PC's statement in mind.  There's no need to posit the cause of that interpretation.

There's no need for the writers to restrict how your PC intended the line.

If it were true "roleplaying" I would have the option to clarify my statement and intent to the NPC as in real life.

You do.

Off-screen.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Because the writers have a particular kind of statement in mind when they write the responses of the NPCs.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that's the statement you made.  It means that's the statement the NPCs heard.

Conclusively, as stated by the people that made the game.

If they didn't make it explicit in the game, then it's not in the game.  Regardless of whether they intended it to be in the game, it's not there.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Because the writers have a particular kind of statement in mind when they write the responses of the NPCs.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that's the statement you made.  It means that's the statement the NPCs heard.

Conclusively, as stated by the people that made the game.

If they didn't make it explicit in the game, then it's not in the game.  Regardless of whether they intended it to be in the game, it's not there.

You're using technical deffinition that has no impact on how the game is presented. It changes nothing about the fact that the NPCs are written as though the PC is saying something specific in a specific way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It changes nothing about the fact that the NPCs are written as though the PC is saying something specific in a specific way.

Yes (exactly this - you are entirely correct), but that the NPCs are written that way changes nothing about the PC's behaviour.

This has been my point in every discussion I have ever had about this.  BioWare writes the NPCs however they write them, which as much detail as they want, but that has exactly zero bearing on the PC behaviour that prompted that reaction.

[the_one_54321]

Your argument boils down to this:

Because I have had the freedom to imagine within the game, the game is constructed as I have imagined it.

This is definitively false. The fact that you imagine things within the game is perfectly fine. But these things do not create any definition with regard to the development or presentation of the game.


edit:
Or myabe not... 

Modifié par the_one_54321, 04 octobre 2010 - 10:24 .

[TheMufflon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Only when the PC is voiced and conversations are acted out.

Otherwise the tone is simply implied by the wording, which is a problem since it limits the possible ways in which the character can express himself to statements for which the wording obviously implies a tone.

Otherwise they're just part of the UI, and the UI doesn't exist in the game world.

Neither do I.

Again, dio you think the keywords in a game like Oblivion represents the exact workds uttered by the PC?

Because of the way "conversations" were done in Oblivion was severly limited in what your character could express, all you could do was explore superficial topics. The NPCs could never react to the way your character behaved.

So why do you thik that of the lines on DAO.

Because they actually are lines. And because the NPCs clearly respond to the wording of the lines. And because the writers said so.

And regardless, the tone certainly isn't printed on the screen.

Indeed, and the fact that it isn't limits the ways in which your character can express himself.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

However, when the writers wrote said response, they did so with a certain tone of the PC's statement in mind.

I'd say they wrote it with a certain interpretation of the PC's statement in mind.  There's no need to posit the cause of that interpretation.

There's no need for the writers to restrict how your PC intended the line.

If it were true "roleplaying" I would have the option to clarify my statement and intent to the NPC as in real life.

You do.

Off-screen.

How is it actually roleplaying if I have to do it outside the game?  That's like if I say something to a friend that upsets them, but somehow can't say anything apologetic or to clarify that I meant something else, and instead would just say it later to myself and call that good enough.

It's a bit of a ridiculous notion really.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Your argument boils down to this:

Because I have had the freedom to imagine within the game, the game is constructed as I have imagined it.

I'd change the second part to read "the game can be constructed as I imagine it".

The fact that you imagine things within the game is perfectly fine. But these things do not create any definition with regard to the development or presentation of the game.

Agreed.  The facts about the game's content do that for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

How is it actually roleplaying if I have to do it outside the game?

Because it maintains the coherence of your character.

What do you think roleplaying is?

That's like if I say something to a friend that upsets them, but somehow can't say anything apologetic or to clarify that I meant something else, and instead would just say it later to myself and call that good enough.

Except there the friend doesn't know you've done it.