258 réponses à ce sujet

[Anarya]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

I cannot disagree with Sylvius enough, on this. When I play a CRPG, I'm more than capable of RPing a character without allowing my metagame knowledge to taint their decisions. So why would I want to trade in the very thing that allows a video game's narrative to be all the more cinematic and compelling for, essentially, the sake of my first -- and only my first -- playthrough?

If the information hadn't been made that available to you, you could actually discover more details about the villians or other characters on subsequent playthroughs.

I suggest it would actually make the game more replayable because you could have more disparate experiences from character to character.

What if, depending on your character's choices, you witness different meetings of Loghain's?  Maybe one character sees (or learns of) him hiring assassins, while a different character sees him being scolded by Anora.

That would produce different roleplaying opportunities.

Perhaps, but it seems that most people don't even finish their first playthrough let alone multiples. So it'd be catering to a very small subset of the playerbase.

[SirShreK]

DarthCaine wrote...

Look, saying Deus Ex isn't an Action RPG just because it's played in a first person perspective is like saying Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Oblivion, Morrowind and VTMB aren't Action RPGs

This is getting rather Dumb.

Where did I say that its NOT an action RPG? You are simply so blinded by rage (I assume) that you don't see my sarcasm? Of course I know what as FPS is .......

[ShrinkingFish]

I am definitely a big fan of the cut away scenes and have no problem distancing my experiences as a player from my experiences as the RP character. And I believe my knowing of the Crow attack prior to Zevran showing up actually enriched the experience for me rather than cheapen it. I, in terms of the player, got a more in depth look to the world and what was going on in it outside of my own actions and I, as the character, still got to react to the assassination attempt as if it was completely unexpected. In fact I believe that taking out that cut scene, as well as every other cut scene in Dragon Age, would cheapen the overall experience as they served only to enrich the story.



And in terms of Varric's narration of the story it can easily incorporate scenes that he did not witness as well as events he wasn't even aware of. Since it is a framing technique it is not restrained by his point of view. It could simply be said that he is telling what he knows and the player gets to witness what really happened at the same time. Varric's version of the story does not necessarily have to match exactly what the player experiences while playing as Hawke, it is just a method to introduce Hawke's story from Hawke's perspective. Much like the framing of the movie 300. That was narrated by the one eyed guy, Dilios, as he told his men the story of Thermopylae before the Battle of Plataea. There is no way Dilios could have known as much as was told in the movie, but that didn't matter, as it was only a framing technique, adding depth and legend to the story without limiting its telling in any fashion.



Anyways, I am hardly one of the "Bioware can do no wrong" people... but I do believe they have some very strong storytellers behind their games and in my opinion they make good choices.



The OP mostly takes issue with stylistic choices in the storytelling. Which, in my opinion, is a very silly thing to do as questions of style are a matter of the author's prerogative and have nothing to do with the reader. The author chooses what method is best for telling their story and does it. If the style encompasses the purpose of the writer then the story achieves its goals. Readers then have the opportunity to witness these stories as the writers have created them to be witnessed. The readers may have done it differently had they written it, but that is not the point.



Anyways. There's my two cents.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Seriously? 

Yes.

There are two large examples from the Mass Effect series where the game tried to tell me something and I missed it because I stayed in character.  The trench run on Ilos (I went on foot), and collecting the team for Cerberus (I skipped Mordin to make a point to Miranda).

[the_one_54321]

SirShreK wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

SirShreK wrote...
What does FPS stand for btw? I seem to have forgotten.

FPS - First Person Shooter

Ok, well if we're understanding each other now, can you see how it changing the story persepective changes what you as the player get from the story? A first person story perspective means that the only information you, the player, will get is what the character is actually seeing and hearing during the game.

[SirShreK]

the_one_54321 wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

SirShreK wrote...
What does FPS stand for btw? I seem to have forgotten.

FPS - First Person Shooter

Ok, well if we're understanding each other now, can you see how it changing the story persepective changes what you as the player get from the story? A first person story perspective means that the only information you, the player, will get is what the character is actually seeing and hearing during the game.

......

How many FPS games, do actually follow that?

[the_one_54321]

SirShreK wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

SirShreK wrote...
What does FPS stand for btw? I seem to have forgotten.

FPS - First Person Shooter

Ok, well if we're understanding each other now, can you see how it changing the story persepective changes what you as the player get from the story? A first person story perspective means that the only information you, the player, will get is what the character is actually seeing and hearing during the game.

......

How many FPS games, do actually follow that?

Do you realize that for everyone else discussing this FPS have nothing to do with it? We're talking about DA and how the story is framed. In particular, Darth Gaider wasn't talking about FPSs at all. (unless I'm completely mistaken)

Modifié par the_one_54321, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:37 .

[Daerog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

I cannot disagree with Sylvius enough, on this. When I play a CRPG, I'm more than capable of RPing a character without allowing my metagame knowledge to taint their decisions. So why would I want to trade in the very thing that allows a video game's narrative to be all the more cinematic and compelling for, essentially, the sake of my first -- and only my first -- playthrough?

If the information hadn't been made that available to you, you could actually discover more details about the villians or other characters on subsequent playthroughs.

I suggest it would actually make the game more replayable because you could have more disparate experiences from character to character.

What if, depending on your character's choices, you witness different meetings of Loghain's?  Maybe one character sees (or learns of) him hiring assassins, while a different character sees him being scolded by Anora.

That would produce different roleplaying opportunities.

It would encourage people to metagame in order to get the cutscenes they want to see.

It's all choice really, metagaming or roleplaying. The scene where Loghain hires Zevran didn't have any affect on the characters I wished to roleplay on. Gave me, the player, knowledge, but I could still play my character like s/he didn't know.

[ShrinkingFish]

Also... on a side note.



I believe that anyone that is incapable of separating what they know from what their character knows is terrible at roleplaying and needs to go back to the old school pencil and paper D&D games to learn how it's done.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

In particular, Darth Gaider wasn't talking about FPSs at all. (unless I'm completely mistaken)

You are not.

David was talking about a first-person narrative, where story elements are only revealed to the player through their revelation to the character.

Of course, this gets a muddy when the player controls multiple characters (as he does in any party-based RPG), so then information available to any of the player characters would still fall within the first-person narrative.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
In particular, Darth Gaider wasn't talking about FPSs at all. (unless I'm completely mistaken)

You are not.

David was talking about a first-person narrative, where story elements are only revealed to the player through their revelation to the character.

Of course, this gets a muddy when the player controls multiple characters (as he does in any party-based RPG), so then information available to any of the player characters would still fall within the first-person narrative.

Fantastic. Then, you do realize that you are not required to metagame? You can just not metagame if you don't want to. On a personal level, I want to see the story and learn about the other characters. I'm not going to have my character act on that information just because I want to see the story and character development myself.

[AmstradHero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The PC learns of Loghain's betrayal second-hand from an unreliable source.  There's no reason for him to have a visceral reaction to the event.  I've had characters not believe Morrigan and Flemeth, for example, and wait for confirmation in Lothering.

But this extra information invites, and possibly even encourages meta-gaming, but more importantly I think it makes it harder for the designers to ensure they've allowed coherent roleplaying opportunities.  They now need to keep track not only of what the player knows, but of what the character knows.  Otherwise they run the risk of requiring nonsensical character behaviour based on information only the player has.

Then you're requiring your roleplaying experience to be constricted to EXACTLY what your character knows and nothing more. In that case, we should do away with the game manual, the codex entries, load screen text, damage floaty numbers, casting meters, coloured text denoting enemy strength...

I have a news flash for you - even when you're playing PnP D&D, you get meta-information as a player that your character does not have. Games have this because it helps tell the story and give certain events more impact. It tells you things to develop the story and increase the impact of events within it.  I can't remember, Sylvius, are you one of the "BG2 brigade" who declare it the best game ever and every game should be a repeat of it? It has numerous non-player observable scenes - but that doesn't stop people from singing its praises. In fact, it probably has one of the best game antagonists, one who is developed by use of the very technique you are complaining about.

If you as a player wish to separate what you know as a character and a player, then that's fine. The game's writers will also know what the character knows, because they cannot provide a response giving information that the player knows but the character does not. However, they can provide the player a choice that the player may be more likely to pick because of information that they have that the character does not because that extra information serves to make the choice more "grey" and difficult.

As for Half-life / Half-life 2, they don't really have a story, they have a setting. It is a good setting with some gaping holes to keep people in the dark about what is actually going on, but any story they have is thin at best.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:46 .

[Dr. wonderful]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Warden doesn't know Loghain is hiring assassins.  So why is there a cutscene revealing this to the player?  All it does is taint our first encounter with that assassin.
.

...

Yeah, BUT we know. Thanks to that I could prepare for that battle.

[SirShreK]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Do you realize that for everyone else discussing this FPS have nothing to do with it? We're talking about DA and how the story is framed. In particular, Darth Gaider wasn't talking about FPSs at all. (unless I'm completely mistaken)

you are not.

What I am saying, is something you already wrote and which to me, seemed to contradict what David was sayin IN GAMES. That is why I started with Half-Life. It was a success despite any additional non-pc perspective info whatsoever.

I was replied to with a post that said:

"A first-person game tells a first-person story."

I have made the part that I thought was strange, in bold.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Again, if you don't want to metagame then don't metagame. No one is holding a gun to your head.

You know what?  You're right.

These scenes don't actually reduce the player's ability to roleplay at all.  I don't think they add to that, either, and as such I think they're a waste of resources, but ignoring their development cost I think I've been convinced that they pose no threat to gameplay.

So while I think they add nothing of value to the game, if they're necessary to sell the game (like detailed graphics or NPC voices) I have no objection beyond one of zot allocation.

[Maverick827]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

and collecting the team for Cerberus (I skipped Mordin to make a point to Miranda).

This requires all sorts of explanation.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Player-directed exposition has its ugly side, true, but it doesn't need to impact roleplaying. Actually I'm amazed how successfully Origins handled the issue. Expositional cutscenes served the purpose of storytelling and weren't there merely for the sake of exposition itself. Just because we players got to watch Loghain's betrayal and Cailan & Duncan's death with our own eyes doesn't mean we had to roleplay a Warden who bore a grudge against Loghain as if he witnessed the betrayal himself. The scene simply told the story to us players, added dramatic value and created emotions. Whereas the Warden still had the option of taking Flemeth and Morrigan's exposition with a grain of salt, notwithstanding what and how the player knew and felt.

Similarly, the Zevran scene. It said us "Loghain is no complete monster". Which by no means required us to play a Warden who has sympathy for Loghain. To the Warden, Loghain was a true villain involved in treachery, torture, slavery and political schemes of the ugliest sort. A player could still bear that in mind and play accordingly.

There was a story to be told in Origins, and it was told to us, regardless of the extent the Warden was kept out of the loop. I suppose we all are wise enough to separate hay from stalk and play a Warden who doesn't act on information he himself doesn't possess if we're dedicated to genuine roleplaying.

[the_one_54321]

Well they add nothing of value to the role playing. But it does add to the story value.

[Dhiro]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Again, if you don't want to metagame then don't metagame. No one is holding a gun to your head.

You know what?  You're right.

These scenes don't actually reduce the player's ability to roleplay at all.  I don't think they add to that, either, and as such I think they're a waste of resources, but ignoring their development cost I think I've been convinced that they pose no threat to gameplay.

So while I think they add nothing of value to the game, if they're necessary to sell the game (like detailed graphics or NPC voices) I have no objection beyond one of zot allocation.

So... no GaiderxSylvius?

Ah, well, it's good to see we can agree without try to kill each other

[Lord_Valandil]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So while I think they add nothing of value to the game

Wait...what?
They add to the plot.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Again, if you don't want to metagame then don't metagame. No one is holding a gun to your head.

You know what?  You're right.

O.M.G. This is going in my sig bar.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

I can't remember, Sylvius, are you one of the "BG2 brigade" who declare it the best game ever and every game should be a repeat of it?

I think BG2 was a significant step backward from the superior BG.

It has numerous non-player observable scenes - but that doesn't stop people from singing its praises. In fact, it probably has one of the best game antagonists, one who is developed by use of the very technique you are complaining about.

And that's partly why.  The player in BG has no idea what the main quest is in BG for quite a while, and even once he does he doesn't know anything about Sarevok other than he killed Gorion at the start of the game.

That's terrific gameplay.

Imagine if at the start of Ultima VII there was a cutscene that told you who the murderer was, and then your character still had to go to the trouble of solving the mystery.

you as a player wish to separate what you know as a character and a player, then that's fine. The game's writers will also know what the character knows, because they cannot provide a response giving information that the player knows but the character does not. However, they can provide the player a choice that they may be more likely to pick because of information that the player has that the character does not, because that extra information serves to make the choice more "grey" and difficult.

Why would it be more difficult?  It's the character making the decision, and the character doesn't have access to the metagame information.

These scenes add nothing to the game.

[Daerog]

Maverick827 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

and collecting the team for Cerberus (I skipped Mordin to make a point to Miranda).

This requires all sorts of explanation.

It is also an example of Open RPG vs. a story focused RPG. We are restricted in our roleplaying to an extent, because there is still a plot that must be followed. However, it would have been funny if Mordin could be skipped and have Shepard be killed by the swarms on Horizon, get a big GAME OVER screen, and told that the only person that can help Shepard in that situation is Mordin after getting the GAME OVER screen.

Edit: i can imagine the forum posts- "WTH? I lost the game? I was told to go back to an earlier save or start over, but my last save was the first mission! And the autosave is on Horizon!" Ahhh.... remember when games didn't have save files?

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:52 .

[DarthCaine]

These scenes can always be skipped if they annoy you so much

[Lord_Valandil]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why would it be more difficult?  It's the character making the decision, and the character doesn't have access to the metagame information.

These scenes add nothing to the game.

Why, of course the character doesn't have access to that information.
That's because the cutscenes are made for us, not for the character. They're meant to add to the plot/story. That's the reason they exist.

DarthCaine wrote...

These scenes can always be skipped if they annoy you so much

Pretty much this.

Modifié par Lord_Valandil, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:52 .