Ce sujet est fermé
So, when making points about DA2 I don't think people have necessarily tabletop D&D in mind.
Neverwinter Nights multiplayer with a DM has the ability to come as close as you can to table top DnD.
Modifié par Meltemph, 08 octobre 2010 - 04:56 .
Meltemph wrote...
So, when making points about DA2 I don't think people have necessarily tabletop D&D in mind.
I'm specifically talking about VO's and the "my character" effect. The idea, to me that the character is yours, is only partially true, since you are always limited to what they want.
Wanting different gameplay mechanics, is not really what I mean.
Meltemph wrote...
Why make a movie of a comic or book or game? Why make a comic of a tv show or game or movie? Etc.
Because they can be done, by making very substantial changes to the content and also, because books(comics) and theatrical(moves, plays, theater) translates back and forth really well.
However, trying to make CRPG's play like table top, at least currently, can not be done. Anyone who has played table top should now this. The limitations just do not allow the proper mechanics. I would argue that the only current genre that can get close to it, is an MMO, but even then it still has its limits, with character control.
Brockololly wrote...
Frequently, my character will say something which I categorically had no intention whatsoever for them to say, in a way which just doesn’t suit the character I’m trying to be. I’ve been forced to choose from a small selection of directions which are compromised abstractions, the result being frustration with my character and the game.
I’ve got to listen to the mouthy bugger, and if I skip this I have no idea what he’s just said because of the limitations of the aforementioned abstractions which are representative only of my character’s initial response and not the entirety of the rambling speech he then goes on to make.
I am my character (right?), so why do they do things and say things which I have little control over, and know a whole bunch of stuff which I don’t? I mean, I’m meant to be them, but I’m having it rammed down my throat that I’m quite clearly not them. They are themselves more than I am them. If that’s what I was looking for I’d watch a film, a really good film that has a century-long legacy of perfecting this kind of storytelling.
In summary - why give me a choice, the illusion of control, only to immediately remind me who's really in charge? I don't get this kind of frustration, certainly not to the same degree, playing a game with purely linear cutscenes.
Having read all the options, considered whether it fits with the character you have established and any potential outcomes, there is no need for you to hear your character speak this information out loud again (a trap fallen in to by earlier games, such as Ion Storm’s Deus Ex) because you’ve already just “heard” it in your head when reading it. And so, the act of clicking replaces the act of speaking.
Modifié par FedericoV, 08 octobre 2010 - 05:44 .
We also have the PC's intent. I mean, you picked that line for a reason, didn't you?AmstradHero wrote...
Because that's all we have to go on.
Would she? How do you know that?Just like with Leliana's response to the player calling her silly. If we actually delivered that line in a serious tone telling her we thought she was stupid, then she would react accordingly.
If you say something to someone, and that person misunderstands you, do you automatically assume that you said it wrong?She doesn't, so we obviously haven't delivered the line in this fashion.
It's not for me to determine what is out of character for an NPC. Presumably everything they do is "in-character", given that they are pre-written characters.Yes, there are some lines in which you can leave the delivery open to some interpretation, but there are some where you cannot because of the strong reaction of the NPC involved. Unless of course you want to have them act completely out of character for the occasional line of dialogue.
Because there's a spectrum, and I'd rather be going in the direction of choice and player agency than the other way.Meltemph wrote...
The argument against a voiced protagonist is always of that it is , "my" character, in essence, wanting a D&D table-top experience, with the developer being the DM... And honestly, I just don't get it. When tabletop D&D never, to me, is done correctly in videogames, and I also don't understand how you feel the character is yours, when your choices are so limited versus tabletop.
Wrong. You have read the complete sentences available to you. Not just 2-3 word phrases.FedericoV wrote...
Brockololly wrote...
Frequently, my character will say something which I categorically had no intention whatsoever for them to say, in a way which just doesn’t suit the character I’m trying to be. I’ve been forced to choose from a small selection of directions which are compromised abstractions, the result being frustration with my character and the game.
It happens even with silent protagonist, since you're not in the mind of the writer.
Actually, yes. Voice actors aren't always good. Plus, you need the ability to read what is being said if you are playing on mute or low volume (which I do a lot). That means turning on subtitles -> so the written word is already in the game -> why not show it initially itself? What's the point of those phrases?FedericoV wrote...
Brockololly wrote...
I’ve got to listen to the mouthy bugger, and if I skip this I have no idea what he’s just said because of the limitations of the aforementioned abstractions which are representative only of my character’s initial response and not the entirety of the rambling speech he then goes on to make.
Help me: I fail to understsand the logic of the argument. He's saying that voice over is bad because you have to listen to it? Lol.
FedericoV wrote...
Brockololly wrote...
In summary - why give me a choice, the illusion of control, only to immediately remind me who's really in charge? I don't get this kind of frustration, certainly not to the same degree, playing a game with purely linear cutscenes.
Because it's an illusion that costs a lot in term of storytelling and visual rapresentation of the game without giving you anything in return in terms of freedom.
MerinTB wrote...
Meltemph wrote...
Why make a movie of a comic or book or game? Why make a comic of a tv show or game or movie? Etc.
Because they can be done, by making very substantial changes to the content and also, because books(comics) and theatrical(moves, plays, theater) translates back and forth really well.
Really? Because, let me tell you, a good novel has to have so much cut out to be a 2 hour long movie it is ridiculous.
Comic books and movies and novels are often translated back and forth (as are games - how many "movie" games are there that basically tell the movie story with action sequences that you get to play), but that doesn't mean it's easy.
You really are disconnected from what goes into such translations if you find it "easy" - let me tell you that converting a movie SCRIPT to a comic book SCRIPT is a pretty major undertaking of writing. And that's just script to script.
I was giving an example which I really don't want to puruse as you'll will try to prove the analogy false, but...
many people will disagree with you about it being fine to make books into movies (well, at least when it comes to their favorite novels.)However, trying to make CRPG's play like table top, at least currently, can not be done. Anyone who has played table top should now this. The limitations just do not allow the proper mechanics. I would argue that the only current genre that can get close to it, is an MMO, but even then it still has its limits, with character control.
I 100% disagree. My personal experience has been that about half the time I table-top I am frustrated with distractions, with how long it takes to get anything done, how off-topic people get, how STUPID some players act all the time, the limits on how much I can get to do and how often I (or my character) gets ignored because the DM can't focus on multiple people at the same time...
whereas if I get a good game like, say, IWD, I make my RPG party using D&D 2nd Ed rules - and I go out on an adventure with my party, exactly like how smoothly (and fast) I'd wish the table-top experience would go.
It comes down to WHAT about table-top gaming are you saying you can't get with a cRPG?
A group of players working together? Try almost any MMO. Get five friends and fire up BG2.
A group of players working together against a DM? Try playing NWN in a persistant world.
Rules mechanics? Try playing ToEE or any of the Infinity Engine games - they are by far more true to the rules than they change the rules.
What, exactly, are you saying the game can't emulate?
The ability to BE your own character? Have you played V:TM-B? Or DA:O more than once with a different personality (and origin) in mind, because I certainly played 4 very different characters who reacted to situations and had situations react to them FAR BETTER than any table-top campaign I've ever played in - and I've played for many years, in many places, with many different groups of players and DM's and such.
What experience, exactly, are you saying that cRPG's can't copy from the table-top game?
Sitting around a table with a bunch of friends playing the same game together? Heck, you can get that with Halo.
All I really see missing, all that I see that the cRPG is more or less poorly designed to handle, is the slowness, tedium, physically rolling of dice... but, again, you can get a lot of that if you get 5 friends together to try playing BG2 toegether (well, maybe not the dice rolling... though you could roll for who gets to be the speaking role)...
I mean, unless your RL RPG experiences are all the overly dramatic "improv acting" style gaming groups, where the stats and rules and dice don't matter - then, yes, the cRPG would have to incoporate more Skype and less rules, and just set up to be a set of tools to transmit images, sounds and... no, you know what, a cRPG could be designed to do this, too.
All I can think of is that the act of there being a computer and pre-designed software strikes you as the problem.
If so, you've never played with a DM running a pre-packaged module and pre-genned characters (like D&D Encounters)
and you're gaming groups are different than mine, where there's always at least 3 people (me often one of them) with laptops open during gaming to help with gaming (character sheets, dice rollers, note taking, PDFs of rules books...)
---
The whole common wisdom of "cRPG's can't emulate the table-top experience" is a fallacy based on presumptions of the speaker as comparing what THEY consider "important" to the table-top experience as compared to a selective presentation of certain cRPGs that don't provide those options.
Now, to be absolutely fair...
if you mean this specific example: "Single-player, story-heavy, mostly linear cRPGs can never offer the same experience as sitting at a table with a bunch of friends and a DM who constructs the adventure on the fly based on where the players want to go and do" then, yes, you are absolutely right.
And you are constructing a very specific scenario.
cRPGs emulate table-top games VERY WELL. With NWN's online component (and similar game multi-player options) you get very, very close to them being exactly the same thing.
The negative reactions to the 2H in DAO were based, I think, not on how effective the build was, but on how effective it looked and felt to play (which is, of course, an idiotic way to make decisions). The 2H warrior in DAO played very differently from the others, and was very differently effective. It was like a whole new class.In Exile wrote...
I played around with a 2-handed warrior on a speed-run recently. I use to think they were absolute garbage. They're really not. They just need to be buffed right and have the right specs, i.e. a full on strength dump. Some of their abilities that hit twice are absolutely devastating.
And if all these games did was tell a story at us without requiring our participation at all (like a book or movie) then that comparison would actually be relevant.Maverick827 wrote...
The silent, passive protagonist is a construct of the past's limited technology, not a specifically chosen narrative technique. By and large a voiced character, who can take the center stage and actually act as a protagonist, is simply a better way to tell a story.
If you happened upon Tolkien working on a rough draft of Lord of the Rings using the first person voice, you would undoubtedly say to him "You know, you might want to look into third person omniscient, it's probably a better storytelling method for what you're trying to do."
And it also makes almost every protagonist not specifically imagined by the writers impossible.In Exile wrote...
VO makes a different kind of protagonist possible.
Why are you laughing at that option? That's a terrific dodge if you don't want to talk about it (because you're too emotional) or want to keep it secret (because you don't trust the King not to have been in on Howe's plan).(iii) third option I can't recall (lol)
Kilshrek wrote...
Well yes, but I did ask how did it make a game immediately better? Like you said, there is a trade off involved. I am only saying that some people like the silent protagonist, and some people don't.
But in response to your meeting Cailan scene, Cailan responds to the dialogue options you pick. In terms of the scene playing out of course your character seems like a mere prop but the responses from Cailan and Duncan are to your choices.
For example when Duncan suggests you move on, picking the "A hot meal first would be nice" option gets you a chuckle and a response. None of the other options do. Would it be any weaker than if the PC had a dialogue wheel option saying "I'm hungry" and then hearing "A hot meal first would be nice"?
In terms of interactivity between characters I imagine a voiced character and Duncan would make it a more cinematic sort of experience where the player is involved in an interactive film, but like I said earlier, this isn't what everyone wants in their RPGs. I personally sit on the fence, I have no disagreement with either way of presenting the character but I do dislike the way the silent protagonist is immediately seen as a weak form of story telling.
[/list]I believe this may just be an idiosyncracy on my part, but I cannot read voices. I have a universal narrator voice for everything I read. I have a hard time describing this, but the best way I can put it is that when I read, I have only one voice: mine, and this is a voice that has no dramatic force.Having read all
the options, considered whether it fits with the character you have
established and any potential outcomes, there is no need for you to
hear your character speak this information out loud again (a trap
fallen in to by earlier games, such as Ion Storm’s Deus Ex) because you’ve already just
“heard” it in your head when reading it. And so, the act of clicking
replaces the act of speaking.
[/list]Unless you're me, apparently, in which case it forces you to listen to the same try inner voice you have for everything.The experience
becomes less about communicating information via voice, and more about
communicating via the written word. This opens the door to a whole new
world of immersive experiences that voice and dialogue can never get
even remotely close to. You can certainly get quite close using sound
and the moving image, with judicious use of voice, but you will never
have the time or a big enough team to realise this in a game the size
and scope of Dragon Age.
Addai67 wrote...
Because there's a spectrum, and I'd rather be going in the direction of choice and player agency than the other way.Meltemph wrote...
The argument against a voiced protagonist is always of that it is , "my" character, in essence, wanting a D&D table-top experience, with the developer being the DM... And honestly, I just don't get it. When tabletop D&D never, to me, is done correctly in videogames, and I also don't understand how you feel the character is yours, when your choices are so limited versus tabletop.
Plus I just find protagonist VO really, really annoying. Time-consuming, unnecessary, intrusive and takes game resources away which IMO are better spent elsewhere.
TimelordDC wrote...
Wrong. You have read the complete sentences available to you. Not just 2-3 word phrases.
Actually, yes. Voice actors aren't always good.FedericoV wrote...
Help me: I fail to understsand the logic of the argument. He's saying that voice over is bad because you have to listen to it? Lol.
Plus, you need the ability to read what is being said if you are playing on mute or low volume (which I do a lot).
That means turning on subtitles -> so the written word is already in the game -> why not show it initially itself? What's the point of those phrases?
And if subtitles are not there, I don't know....that will be an incredibly stupid decision.
FedericoV wrote...
Because it's an illusion that costs a lot in term of storytelling and visual rapresentation of the game without giving you anything in return in terms of freedom.
Lol. Are you serious? Getting protagonist VO will likely cost more and take much more time than adding in lines for dialogue. As I said before, said lines should already be present in written form for subtitles...
Modifié par FedericoV, 08 octobre 2010 - 07:11 .
That other people manage to do it isn't evidence worth considering?In Exile wrote...
We disagree whether this is ever possible. I contend that independent of VO, it is never possible to play a character not specifically imagined by the writers.
Those "silly claims" had actual justification behind them. They're not going away just because you call them names.Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
As someone else has pointed out, despite some silly claims to debunk the theory, there was tone in a good portion of the sentences said by the lead in DAO.
Maverick827 wrote...
The silent, passive protagonist is a construct of the past's limited technology, not a specifically chosen narrative technique. By and large a voiced character, who can take the center stage and actually act as a protagonist, is simply a better way to tell a story.
+1 and don't you love people who a) assert their preferences as the way things just ought to be done andReyno411 wrote...
Maverick827 wrote...
The silent, passive protagonist is a construct of the past's limited technology, not a specifically chosen narrative technique. By and large a voiced character, who can take the center stage and actually act as a protagonist, is simply a better way to tell a story.
That isn't an entirely objective statement. There is a tradeoff between having a voiced character and a silent one. It depends on what one values more. It will vary from person to person but it isn't something you can say applies universally or is a fact. Well you can say that,but it isn't true.
apparently think anything new is better just because it's new.
Modifié par Meltemph, 08 octobre 2010 - 07:21 .
You're going about it entirely backward. For the tones to work with the PC at all, they need to known to the player before he chooses the line.Meltemph wrote...
I think the tones are evident of the actions based on the dialog, personally. If there are very specific actions that MUST take place, then to me, that is more important then anything you can translate from the wordage.
There are too many spots in DAO(and many others) where if I interjected my own personality or motive the actions followed up by the PC just doesn't fit. For a very simple instance, no matter what motives or personality you give your dwarf commoner he MUST take the place of the Noble to fight in the ring. Which leaves 0 room for any type of personality that would not do it.
There are to many situations, like those, that force me to accept that the writing as specific actions in mind that give you obvious meaning to certain reaction dialog. Some people may be able to ignore it, but that seems more like form of psychosis that I just can't do, I can't remove myself from reality that much.
You're going about it entirely backward. For the tones to work with the PC at all, they need to known to the player before he chooses the line.
With a silent PC (or with ME), those tones were never knowable in advance, so they can't have been relevant to the selection.
Modifié par Meltemph, 08 octobre 2010 - 07:36 .
Retour en haut