258 réponses à ce sujet

[Saibh]

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?

You know how a good character might be inclined to pick Harrowmont, since he's not a scheming bastard, but then you find out that Bhelen is the better choice in the future and pick him instead? That's metagaming. Using outside knowledge to give yourself advantages within the game.

[Dr. wonderful]

Dhiro wrote...

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.

Yes, I notice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

No.

Your choices in a tabletop game are equally limited, unless your GM has fleshed out every location in the setting and has perfect knowledge of every NPC.

A typical tabletop game session involves a planned adventure.  Why you do it and how you do it are up to you, but where you go and whome you meet is largely beyond your ability to change it.

The same is true in a CRPG. 

But even if I were to accept your assertion (which I do not), the whole point of a CRPG is to reproduce a tabletop RPG experience without the need for other people.  Any feature that moves the CRPG away from that is detrimental.

How I play a tabletop RPG and how I play a CRPG are virtually identical.

Particularly outside of combat, I can think of very little you can't do in a CRPG that you can do in a tabletop RPG.

[ShrinkingFish]

Dhiro wrote...

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.

Hahaha, valiant attempt anyways.

Here is an actual answer: It's when you play and make choices based on all the information outside what your character knows. Or at least, that is how it is being used here. Like looking up plot points online or doing multiple playthroughs or being made privy to information the character would otherwise not be aware of and changing your actions based on that knowledge.

[Mykel54]

I agree only with the Zevran cutscene part, i think it wasn´t needed. On the other hand, the scenes pre-landsmeet were very important so the player could know what was going on in denerim, and the relation between loghain-howe-anora. My opinion is that cutscenes are good as long as they add something to the story and don´t spoil too much. In my opinion the zevran cutscene did spoil a bit that an assassin was after you, and made the later encounter a bit less of a surprise, when the player interrogates zevran he already knows about loghain and the crows, thus making zevran´s explanations a bit redundant.

[Dr. wonderful]

Saibh wrote...

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?

You know how a good character might be inclined to pick Harrowmont, since he's not a scheming bastard, but then you find out that Bhelen is the better choice in the future and pick him instead? That's metagaming. Using outside knowledge to give yourself advantages within the game.

Oh, so using a game guide?

Because I'm a guilty son of a gun.

[Dhiro]

Saibh wrote...

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?

You know how a good character might be inclined to pick Harrowmont, since he's not a scheming bastard, but then you find out that Bhelen is the better choice in the future and pick him instead? That's metagaming. Using outside knowledge to give yourself advantages within the game.

What she said.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Dr. wonderful wrote...

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.

Did you really have to spoil it for me? Now there's no room left for alternative interpretations.

*sob*

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Your choices in a tabletop game are equally limited, unless your GM has fleshed out every location in the setting and has perfect knowledge of every NPC.

Complete rubbish. You either played with a lousy GM or you were a lousy player. Taking things in a different direction on the fly is standar procedure in table top. You have to be flexable because real worlds are flexable and change based on what direction you choose to take, no matter if they were initially planned directions or not.

[upsettingshorts]

There are some obvious examples of metagaming in the recruitment of several DA:O sidekicks:

* What if Sten wasn't a companion and just some crazy Qunari murderer? Foreknowledge that he is a potential companion is likely to influence your decision to release him.

* What if Leliana made up the whole vision story and is actually something else, perhaps a spy sent by Loghain to follow you and report on your movements? Not outside the realm of possibility given she appears at the same time as Loghain's soldiers who are expendable. Hypothetical sure, but I wanted to take a different approach than "one if she is just a nutty wackjob?"

* If you don't know that Zevran is recruitable - the fact you even get a dialogue to talk to him is a huge hint by itself - the list of reasons for leaving him alive is a very, very short one. In my "canon" playthrough, where I metagame to the point of trying to simulate not metagaming (heh) Zevran gets his throat slit right there on the road.

But other examples would be surrendering to Cauthrien because you know you just get a mission to either escape or be rescued from Fort Drakon.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 octobre 2010 - 12:35 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

No.

Your choices in a tabletop game are equally limited, unless your GM has fleshed out every location in the setting and has perfect knowledge of every NPC.

A typical tabletop game session involves a planned adventure.  Why you do it and how you do it are up to you, but where you go and whome you meet is largely beyond your ability to change it.

The same is true in a CRPG. 

But even if I were to accept your assertion (which I do not), the whole point of a CRPG is to reproduce a tabletop RPG experience without the need for other people.  Any feature that moves the CRPG away from that is detrimental.

How I play a tabletop RPG and how I play a CRPG are virtually identical.

Particularly outside of combat, I can think of very little you can't do in a CRPG that you can do in a tabletop RPG.

Marked is how we GM RPGs in my neighborhood. Planned adventures for table top rpgs are a marker for inadequate and unimaginative GMs in my opinion. Or just a sign that the GM and players just don't have the time to properly invest in a real RPG.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 02 octobre 2010 - 12:38 .

[ShrinkingFish]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Your choices in a tabletop game are equally limited, unless your GM has fleshed out every location in the setting and has perfect knowledge of every NPC.

Complete rubbish. You either played with a lousy GM or you were a lousy player. Taking things in a different direction on the fly is standar procedure in table top. You have to be flexable because real worlds are flexable and change based on what direction you choose to take, no matter if they were initially planned directions or not.

Right on, brother. Tell it like it is.

[ShrinkingFish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There are some obvious examples of metagaming in the recruitment of several DA:O sidekicks:

* What if Sten wasn't a companion and just some crazy Qunari murderer? Foreknowledge that he is a potential companion is likely to influence your decision to release him.

* What if Leliana made up the whole vision story and is actually something else, perhaps a spy sent by Loghain to follow you and report on your movements? Not outside the realm of possibility given she appears at the same time as Loghain's soldiers who are expendable. Hypothetical sure, but I wanted to take a different approach than "one if she is just a nutty wackjob?"

* If you don't know that Zevran is recruitable - the fact you even get a dialogue to talk to him is a huge hint by itself - the list of reasons for leaving him alive is a very, very short one. In my "canon" playthrough, where I metagame to the point of trying to simulate not metagaming (heh) Zevran gets his throat slit right there on the road.

But other examples would be surrendering to Cauthrien because you know you just get a mission to either escape or be rescued from Fort Drakon.

These are actually the main reasons why I intend to avoid all DA2 related websites and discussion boards as soon as they start releasing information about companions and the like. I want my first play through to be as pure as possible and see what happens.

[Annihilator27]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Please keep in mind Sylvius has a rather.... unique look at RPG video games and what should or should not be included.

Yeah no kidding.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Your choices in a tabletop game are equally limited, unless your GM has fleshed out every location in the setting and has perfect knowledge of every NPC.

They're limited only by your respective imaginations.  CRPGs are in fact actually limited because there are in fact only so many choices. 

A typical tabletop game session involves a planned adventure.  Why you do it and how you do it are up to you, but where you go and whome you meet is largely beyond your ability to change it.

My tabletop gaming experience isn't extensive, but my friends and I always came up with our own stories.

But even if I were to accept your assertion (which I do not), the whole point of a CRPG is to reproduce a tabletop RPG experience without the need for other people.  Any feature that moves the CRPG away from that is detrimental.

How I play a tabletop RPG and how I play a CRPG are virtually identical.

Particularly outside of combat, I can think of very little you can't do in a CRPG that you can do in a tabletop RPG.

I think that the whole point of a CRPG used to be to try to reproduce the tabletop experience in the same way that early movies tried to reproduce theater.  Once filmmakers began to master the medium, they learned what its strengths and weaknesses were, and moved forward.

The same is true for CRPGs. 

Anyway, the part I bolded is the key.  How you play a game like DA:O is irrelevant.  The point I was refuting was the notion that cutscenes from different perspectives add nothing to the story.  The story is, whether you like it or not, entirely Bioware's and not yours.  You are choosing your adventure from the options - and only from the options - presented to you.  The scenes with Loghain are of fundamental importance to the story they want told.  

I could write a wildly different scene with Loghain and Howe that could get across the same idea - that they're going to send men to kill you and Alistair - but giving a totally different insight into how they would choose to do it, why, and how Loghain is presented as a character.  Those contextual details are important to the narrative Bioware has written, and those scenes exist for good reason. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 octobre 2010 - 12:53 .

[Saibh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There are some obvious examples of metagaming in the recruitment of several DA:O sidekicks:

* What if Sten wasn't a companion and just some crazy Qunari murderer? Foreknowledge that he is a potential companion is likely to influence your decision to release him.

* What if Leliana made up the whole vision story and is actually something else, perhaps a spy sent by Loghain to follow you and report on your movements? Not outside the realm of possibility given she appears at the same time as Loghain's soldiers who are expendable. Hypothetical sure, but I wanted to take a different approach than "one if she is just a nutty wackjob?"

* If you don't know that Zevran is recruitable - the fact you even get a dialogue to talk to him is a huge hint by itself - the list of reasons for leaving him alive is a very, very short one. In my "canon" playthrough, where I metagame to the point of trying to simulate not metagaming (heh) Zevran gets his throat slit right there on the road.

But other examples would be surrendering to Cauthrien because you know you just get a mission to either escape or be rescued from Fort Drakon.

Yes, exactly. It's worth noting that Genre Savvy borders on metagaming. Although you might not know for sure without a doubt that Zevran is a party member, chances are he is, so you don't kill him.

I also correctly guessed that Redcliffe would remain completely safe if I went to the Circle of Magi without actually knowing this for a fact. You can be wrong--some people didn't realize their crew would die in ME2 after being captured if they didn't book it there.

[Dr. wonderful]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Dr. wonderful wrote...

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.

Did you really have to spoil it for me? Now there's no room left for alternative interpretations.

*sob*

That's Dr. Wonderful: Crushing dreams.


Dr. Wonderful had earn the Dream Crusher Perk.

[Alexia89]

I think in DA 1 it would be ok to take them out....and i agree them sort of cutscenes are taken more from films and feel out of place in games (especially rpg's).



But in DA 2 the framed narrative gives this style much more plausibility. It makes perfect sense having scenes like the loghain-Zevran scene with the framed narrative because everything you hear is from Varric or Cassandra

[upsettingshorts]

Saibh wrote...
Yes, exactly. It's worth noting that Genre
Savvy borders on metagaming. Although you might not know for sure
without a doubt that Zevran is a party member, chances are he is, so you
don't kill him.

I also correctly guessed that Redcliffe would
remain completely safe if I went to the Circle of Magi without actually
knowing this for a fact. You can be wrong--some people didn't realize
their crew would die in ME2 after being captured if they didn't book it
there.

Indeed. I left out a point I was going to make earlier:

How can you metagame the story - in the strict sense - during a pen and paper RPG session? Steal the GM's notes? Take a peek at the adventure book if there is one? Take the GM out drinking and ask him probing questions?

Now on the other hand take the concept of metagaming in a CRPG that we're all familiar with - essentially foreknowledge of the outcome of particular decisions - and apply it to my chosen comparison: A choose your own adventure book.

"After you defeat the ambush, one of your attackers - an elf male - appears to be wounded but alive. If you want to slit his throat, go to Page 47. If you want to see what he has to say, go to Page 53."

Metagaming is like going to page 53 before having made the decision. I try not to make these comparisons lightly, and that's part of the reason I picked choose your own adventure books. The choices already exist and more importantly the consequences already exist. In a pen and paper RPG you might surprise your GM and do something unexpected, and he has to react - the future of the decision is potentially uncertain. This is not possible in a CRPG.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 octobre 2010 - 12:46 .

[Reaverwind]

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.

I agree. You learned gradually what was going on by interacting with the gameworld, rather than having it spoon-fed to you.

[ShrinkingFish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Saibh wrote...
Yes, exactly. It's worth noting that Genre
Savvy borders on metagaming. Although you might not know for sure
without a doubt that Zevran is a party member, chances are he is, so you
don't kill him.

I also correctly guessed that Redcliffe would
remain completely safe if I went to the Circle of Magi without actually
knowing this for a fact. You can be wrong--some people didn't realize
their crew would die in ME2 after being captured if they didn't book it
there.

Indeed. I left out a point I was going to make earlier:

How can you metagame the story - in the strict sense - during a pen and paper RPG session? Steal the GM's notes? Take a peek at the adventure book if there is one? Take the GM out drinking and ask him probing questions?

Now on the other hand take the concept of metagaming in a CRPG that we're all familiar with - essentially foreknowledge of the outcome of particular decisions - and apply it to my chosen comparison: A choose your own adventure book.

"After you defeat the ambush, one of your attackers - an elf male - appears to be wounded but alive. If you want to slit his throat, go to Page 47. If you want to see what he has to say, go to Page 53."

Metagaming is like going to page 53 before having made the decision. I try not to make these comparisons lightly, and that's part of the reason I picked choose your own adventure books. The choices already exist and more importantly the consequences already exist. In a pen and paper RPG you might surprise your GM and do something unexpected, and he has to react - the future of the decision is potentially uncertain. This is not possible in a CRPG.

I am always proud when my gamers surprise me. Makes the game a lot more fun for me.

[Asepsis]

ShrinkingFish wrote...


These are actually the main reasons why I intend to avoid all DA2 related websites and discussion boards as soon as they start releasing information about companions and the like. I want my first play through to be as pure as possible and see what happens.

The same for me. I jumped into Dragon Age, by influence of my brother, without having watched any of the trailers or gone to any of the websites. I was surprised by a lot of things in the game, I think DA: 2 will be even better. Hopefully anyway!

[ENolan]

All in all, I know how to sum up both sides into one agreeable course of action.



"Let's dress up as cars and walk around Times Square honking horns."

[ShrinkingFish]

Asepsis wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...


These are actually the main reasons why I intend to avoid all DA2 related websites and discussion boards as soon as they start releasing information about companions and the like. I want my first play through to be as pure as possible and see what happens.

The same for me. I jumped into Dragon Age, by influence of my brother, without having watched any of the trailers or gone to any of the websites. I was surprised by a lot of things in the game, I think DA: 2 will be even better. Hopefully anyway!

Yeah, I am happy to say that when I started my Cousland I was completely and totally caught off guard by what happened. So glad I avoided all prior knowledge to the actual plot. The only reason I looked into the companions is because I needed some sort of basis to judge whether or not I'd like the game and whether or not it was for me.

Now that I'm a fan of the franchise I have no doubts abou DA2 and intend to know as little as possible going in. My unquenchable thirst for information has ruined some stuff already for me but I hope to keep all the major stuff unknown.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 02 octobre 2010 - 12:56 .

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

DarthCaine wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Please keep in mind Sylvus has a rather.... unique look at RPG video games and what should or should not be included.

Yes, he usually likes the opposite of what everyone else likes

To be fair, that's a good thing. The majority of people are, by definition, average, and average isn't good. Average is low tier, low caliber. Average are the people who find Family Guy funny and think Avatar was the greatest movie of all time, as opposed to Citizen Kane, China Town, or even Goodfellas. 

Disliking what the majority like is pretentious, but pretentious isn't bad.