258 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

It's called dramatic irony, and I don't have a problem with it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:57 .

[Daerog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Eh, it all depends on the story. Of course it would be horrible for a mystery. Unless the cutscene was all mysterious and one couldn't make anything out, giving some empathy to the victim. Jade Empire was certainly nice in giving a cutscene, adding some empathy to the connection the hero has with Master Li, and then expand on the cutscene to completely flip the whole story around and such. So, it wouldn't work in Ultima VII, but I thought the cutscenes were great in KotOR. Listenning to Darth Malak give the order to destroy Taris may not have been necessary because the character sure finds out anyway, but it helps add emotion and establishes the villian's character. Don't always want to establish the villian's character, but the writers/developers wished to in order to add more tension/emotion to the plot for the audience, so there it is. Sometimes it's nice, sometimes you don't wish to establish the enemy until the end (or never).

I thought they were nice in Jade Empire.

[MerinTB]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I had to read that one several times myself.

[AmstradHero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
{Designers} 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.

Because unlike you, not everyone demands that they make decisions based solely on the character's information that they have been explicitly told during the game. In video games we're often more familiar with individual characters than we should be based only on the in-game interactions. Actions and events are mentioned that we never see: read some of the romance dialogues in particular in BG2 or DAO - people mention cooking, keeping watch together, walking side by side, and so many things we're never explicitly shown but infer based on things we're told.

Taking this into consideration, which has more impact:
a) Being told in a barkstring or short conversation "Loghain hired assassins to kill the Grey Warden"
Having a cutscene showing Loghain and his reaction to Howe's suggestion

Which gives us as a player more insight into Loghain's character? Which is going to make it more difficult for players to decide whether to kill or spare Loghain at the Landsmeet?

You have a very particular preference for overly strict roleplaying - an ideal that never exists when you know anything about the setting beforehand no matter what form of roleplaying you're doing. To demand that this be implemented in the game to the detriment of the overall presentation and cohesive and cinematic plot development techniques that we can utilise in modern game storytelling is like writing a book but limiting yourself to a subset of words and writing techniques.

Is it possible to tell a story entirely from first person perspective? Yes, but to say this is the only way that stories can be told is horribly limiting. Imagine if there was not a single novel in existence that was written from a 3rd person perspective. That's what you're asking for.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

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

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

The plot in an RPG is the character's jhourney.  Since the character doesn't have this information, it's irrelevant to the plot.

[Lord_Valandil]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

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

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

The plot in an RPG is the character's jhourney.  Since the character doesn't have this information, it's irrelevant to the plot.

But I can't see your point.
Of course it's the character's journey, but the villains are also part of the character's world. If they only get two or three scenes that would be pretty lame, don't you think?

[SeanMurphy2]

DAOME2FTW wrote...

Maybe Loghains betrayel at Ostagar could have been done better, we could have found out nearer the end or something.

That could have been interesting.

The player would be left in the dark about what exactly happened at Ostager.And would hear conflicting rumours about it aftterwards. It would initially present Loghain as a greyer mysterious figure than a clear antagonist.


Though of course that would have been an entirely different game and direction.

[Daerog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

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

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

The plot in an RPG is the character's jhourney.  Since the character doesn't have this information, it's irrelevant to the plot.

This reminded me of Dragon Age: Journeys. Or is it Journey? Which has no cutscenes outside of what is exposed to the main character. It also has a story that can be followed because all the background info is given to us before hand, and since the villian and his plans/motives are meant to be mysterious, the outside cutscenes are undesired. Now that I think about it, was that villian a Disciple? It seemed pretty intellectual, or just a loud mouth Emissary Alpha?
The main plot in a story is the hero's journey (for fantasy novels and such, of course there are exceptions). Doesn't mean they can't or should never move the focus to a different character for a bit in order to flesh out other characters.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The plot in an RPG is the character's jhourney.  Since the character doesn't have this information, it's irrelevant to the plot.

You're making the common mistake of presuming that the words story and plot are entirely interchangeable.  While you are in fact correct in isolation, by implication your greater point is based on a flawed premise.

The story's plot is, more or less, "what happens" - it is the nuts and bolts of the story.  If one were to describe the plot of Dragon Age: Origins for example, it would start something like this - assuming Human noble origin:

* Protagonist survives betrayal of father's friend that leaves most of his family dead by joining Grey Wardens
* Protagonist participates in the Battle of Ostagar and is rescued by Flemeth
* Protagonist builds party that then works to unite Ferelden against the Blight

Other elements of the story, while not necessarily directly impacting the plot - how the story moves from point A to point B - do things that change the story by providing depth, characterization, and expanding the setting.  Cutscenes that reveal Loghain's plans are meant to reintroduce tension to the story and remind the audience, in this case the player, that the antagonist exists and is active in his attempts to influence the story from beyond the protagonist's view.

Some fiction relies heavily on the plot to move the story forward, almost at the expense of other elements.  These works stress pacing and tension.   Thrillers are a good example of this, an example would be The Hunt for Red October where cut-aways and insights into character or the setting are brief or taken to be understood.  Roleplaying games, by their nature, are often far too slowly paced - a side effect of giving a player freedom - for them to rely on the plot alone to drive them.

Many have pointed out that first-person only stories are indeed possible, but Dragon Age: Origins is not and never claims to be.  The pacing and nature of a first person shooter, for example that of Half Life and its sequels allows for a silent protagonist in a plot-driven story.  In fact, the isolation and depersonalization of Gordon Freeman is a big part of why its story works. 

Finally, the conception of what a computer roleplaying game is and ought to be is a point of near-constant debate, so to assume concensus exists and then to cite your opinion as representative of it, is - a rather mild example of - hubris. 

Edit: Yes of course I'm splitting hairs, but for a good reason.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 octobre 2010 - 11:50 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

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

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

The plot in an RPG is the character's jhourney.  Since the character doesn't have this information, it's irrelevant to the plot.

The plot is the story that the game tells... the RPG character is an element of this plot, often the protagonist. But he is still just a single element of the narrative. The narrative does not have to be limited by the main character's experiences.

The cut scenes certainly enrich the narrative plot and therefore the plot of the story itself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Shepard was effectively being held prisoner by Cerberus, so he didn't take kindly to Miranda telling him what to do.  Do demonstrate that he was independent of Cerberus, Shepard intentionally did exactly the opposite of Miranda's directiion that he collect Mordin first.

Except that I was using FemShep, but male pronouns make that paragraph easier to follow.

[cachx]

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.

I don't see how this particular scene has a negative impact on the game, or even gives you exploitable "metagame info".

It would be bad if Zevran's assasination idea was wearing a fake moustache and trick you into drinking from a bottle with a skull and bones on it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

cachx wrote...

I don't see how this particular scene has a negative impact on the game, or even gives you exploitable "metagame info".

Much of the harm was already done by them publicising the identities of our companions prior to release.

[Saibh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Shepard was effectively being held prisoner by Cerberus, so he didn't take kindly to Miranda telling him what to do.  Do demonstrate that he was independent of Cerberus, Shepard intentionally did exactly the opposite of Miranda's directiion that he collect Mordin first.

Except that I was using FemShep, but male pronouns make that paragraph easier to follow.

That's not all that bad. I mean, the first rule of getting through ME2 correctly is don't ever take Miranda's advice. So you started out on the right foot.

[upsettingshorts]

Saibh wrote...
That's not all that bad. I mean, the first rule of getting through ME2 correctly is don't ever take Miranda's advice. So you started out on the right foot.

There is no "correctly."  And my Shepard, whether he/she trusts Cerberus or not, gets Mordin first.  Because he/she is above playing childish, petty mindgames with Cerberus and would rather get the tech specialist whose potential ability to develop countermeasures is mission critical.  That's how I "roleplay" that one.  Anyway, sidetrack aside...

Computer roleplaying games aren't actually roleplaying games.

They're rolechoosing games.  All the paths are pre-written for you.  You have only limited choices that exist whether you choose them or not.   In effect, the player is choosing which story they want told, sort of like a choose-your-adventure book and not a roleplaying game.  Sure, stat building, item acquisition, etc - are all pen and paper RPG conventions, but they are features that are distinctly different from story.  In a storytelling sense, CRPGs only mimic pen and paper RPGs, they aren't really the same. 

So in that sense - given that I'm picking which form of Bioware's story I want to see told - the inclusion of additional perspectives is neither here nor there.

Would I like it if, during a pen and paper roleplaying session my GM started describing scenes far outside my character's perspective?  Not really, no, but that's because it's a fundamentally different experience.

* Some games offer more pre-written choices than others, or are sufficiently sandboxy to give the illusion of freedom of choice.  But the underlying truth of the point still stands.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 octobre 2010 - 12:02 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Saibh wrote...
That's not all that bad. I mean, the first rule of getting through ME2 correctly is don't ever take Miranda's advice. So you started out on the right foot.

There is no "correctly."  And my Shepard, whether he/she trusts Cerberus or not, gets Mordin first.  Because he/she is above playing childish, petty mindgames with Cerberus and would rather get the tech specialist whose potential ability to develop countermeasures is mission critical.  That's how I "roleplay" that one.  Anyway, sidetrack aside...

Computer roleplaying games aren't actually roleplaying games.

They're rolechoosing games.  All the paths are pre-written for you.  You have only limited choices that exist whether you choose them or not.   In effect, the player is choosing which story they want told, sort of like a choose-your-adventure book and not a roleplaying game.  Sure, stat building, item acquisition, etc - are all pen and paper RPG conventions, but they are features that are distinctly different from story.  In a storytelling sense, CRPGs only mimic pen and paper RPGs, they aren't really the same. 

So in that sense - given that I'm picking which form of Bioware's story I want to see told - the inclusion of additional perspectives is neither here nor there.

Would I like it if, during a pen and paper roleplaying session my GM started describing scenes far outside my character's perspective?  Not really, no, but that's because it's a fundamentally different experience.

* Some games offer more pre-written choices than others, or are sufficiently sandboxy to give the illusion of freedom of choice.  But the underlying truth of the point still stands.  

Wow... good point. You're absolutely right. I didn't even think of it this way. But there you have it.

[Dr. wonderful]

...Sylvius the Mad just broke my mind







And I can't put it back together!

[Saibh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Saibh wrote...
That's not all that bad. I mean, the first rule of getting through ME2 correctly is don't ever take Miranda's advice. So you started out on the right foot.

There is no "correctly."  And my Shepard, whether he/she trusts Cerberus or not, gets Mordin first.  Because he/she is above playing childish, petty mindgames with Cerberus and would rather get the tech specialist whose potential ability to develop countermeasures is mission critical.  That's how I "roleplay" that one.  Anyway, sidetrack aside...

That was a joke. /EDI

[AmstradHero]

You've made two great posts in this page, Upsettingshorts. Bravo on both counts. You've written some excellent points that players really should take the time to grasp. Understanding the difference between plot and story is crucial to understanding what makes a good game because it is a media in which the distinction is absolutely necessary.

The roleplaying versus rolechoosing is due to the predetermined nature of a computer game in that CRPGs are inherently limited in what they can provide the player given current technical limitations. This is perhaps a semantic definition that comes down to the definition of exactly what a roleplaying game is, but it's an interesting point nonetheless.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 02 octobre 2010 - 12:14 .

[PsyrenY]

I assume Sylvius only ever plays games once then. Anything else is metagaming.

[Dr. wonderful]

Optimystic_X wrote...

I assume Sylvius only ever plays games once then. Anything else is metagaming.

...What the hell is Metagaming anyway?

[Ortaya Alevli]

Dr. wonderful wrote...

...Sylvius the Mad just broke my mind



And I can't put it back together!

Is this guy trying to do a Alt+Ctrl+Del with his nose? Because it doesn't work that way.

[Saibh]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Dr. wonderful wrote...

...Sylvius the Mad just broke my mind



And I can't put it back together!

Is this guy trying to do a Alt+Ctrl+Del with his nose? Because it doesn't work that way.

Hence the borked.

[Dhiro]

Dr. wonderful wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

I assume Sylvius only ever plays games once then. Anything else is metagaming.

...What the hell is Metagaming anyway?

Let's use a exemple:

Mary Sue is talking with a guy. Now Mary Sue have to kill the guy or Alistair.

Ok, so the personality of the character usually would make her kill the guy. But the player knows that kiling Alistair make Mary Sue beautiful and perfect and with long blond-silver hair and purprle eyes. So Mary Sue kill Alistair.

I suck in explaining things.

Modifié par Dhiro, 02 octobre 2010 - 12:29 .

[Dr. wonderful]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Dr. wonderful wrote...

...Sylvius the Mad just broke my mind



And I can't put it back together!

Is this guy trying to do a Alt+Ctrl+Del with his nose? Because it doesn't work that way.

No, Just showing how I'm trying to headesk myself to death.