885 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

In Exile wrote...

I think amusement is, and that's generally associated with cracking jokes. Granted, the person on the receiving end of it may be far from sharing the feeling if the joke happens to be at their expense.

At least as I use sarcasm, amusement isn't really what I'm feeling. Maybe irritation? It's hard to pin down an emotional state, but I don't think amusement is right.

A number of people use sarcastic to describe any sort of snarky comment. Sarcasm, however, is an implicit criticism of something or someone. It's a display of scorn.

[In Exile]

Maria Caliban wrote...

A number of people use sarcastic to describe any sort of snarky comment. Sarcasm, however, is an implicit criticism of something or someone. It's a display of scorn.

Or contempt? I think that may be a better fit. Or are they synonyms, making my contribution useless?

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

This is an excellent example of misinterpretation. I meant to say, but apparently failed to convey, that if you were the writer associating an emotion with each line, what my take on the line would be is different from yours, but your NPC reaction would be written for your emotion and not mine, and so there would be dissonance.

I actually got what you meant, that's why i added the part about misinterpretation as possible make-believe explanation for situation where your interpretation and the writer's intent don't match

There's indeed no way to correct such "misinterpretation" in the game, but that's limitation of the medium. There's lot of things which can't be discussed in the game because they weren't included in the dialogue files, even if they may feel like something obvious that should definitely be there.

At least as I use sarcasm, amusement isn't really what I'm feeling. Maybe irritation? It's hard to pin down an emotional state, but I don't think amusement is right.

It is possible you are feeling something else (and i think Maria's note about scorn will be right for plenty people too) but nevertheless you are feeling something and that sensation is strong enough to prod you into expressing it. That's hardly case of being entirely unemotional and/or not expressing one's emotion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

No, it has to be a dismissal. Put another way, we can say expression is the combination of a mental state + some series of physical states.

But expression itself is a purely physical event.

The NPC (or the other person) only has access to the physical states, and has to infer the mental state. During a misunderstanding, the NPC (or other person) uses the physical states as an indication of the wrong mental state.

But here is the issue: is the failure on the part of the NPC, for not getting the mental state right, or the PC, for not neccesarily using a universal cue?

I don't think this is an answerable question.  We can't know whether the failure was the PC's or the NPC's.  All we can know is how confident the PC was that he expressed himself effectively.

Let me just add that obviously we should take the mental state to be the true representation of the emotional state; it's just that, by doing so, we dismiss any possible alternative account. I took that to be the usage of dismissal.

Yes.  I just wanted to be clear that I don't think the NPC reaction is itself an alternative account.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 novembre 2010 - 08:57 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

I guess I wasn't clear there. We're talking about Bio submitting two different possible  plans for approval to EA. Plan one is the plan we got, with a voiced protagonist. Obviously that plan needs a budget for the feature.

Then there's plan 2, maybe one that Bio discussed, maybe one from some parallel universe. No VO protagonist, therefore no money for that. Is plan 2 cheaper than plan one, or are the budgets approximately equal? My guess is that they'd likely be approximately equal, though we can't actually know anything about the road not taken. I don't think Bio's incentives are to lowball EA here.

This is all assuming that the budget is drawn to the development plan, rather than the plan being made to fit the budget. We always used to make our plans with a pretty good idea of what top management would approve, though since my industry is relatively stable I don't know how relevant this is.

I love how you make the non VO protagonist out to be this unheard of thing from a "parallel universe" Plenty of current RPG's have non voiced PC's. Fallout NV being a good example. And still managed to be damn fine games without the hollywood cinematic experience that's such the craze these days.

[DoomBlackDragon]

I really not one to complain on the voices actors/actress sounding. It more of the fact that it cuts off my creative ideas. How much more I get attach to a person with no voice as I can look at the lines and thing of something to say for my character. Mass Effect I had not love for my shapard other then my class type. That was about all I cared for Sharard. In DAO I found my self becoming more deeply involed with my characters and not hitting the spacebar so much and accedently hitting the wrong words as the Mass Effect dailoge circle sucks and will hit what ever it default to when you hit space bar. What is wrong with you BioWares. If it not broke then do not fix it. Bad enough Mass Effect 1 - 2 had a conversation I truely did not care much for.

[AlanC9]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I guess I wasn't clear there. We're talking about Bio submitting two different possible  plans for approval to EA. Plan one is the plan we got, with a voiced protagonist. Obviously that plan needs a budget for the feature.

Then there's plan 2, maybe one that Bio discussed, maybe one from some parallel universe. No VO protagonist, therefore no money for that. Is plan 2 cheaper than plan one, or are the budgets approximately equal? My guess is that they'd likely be approximately equal, though we can't actually know anything about the road not taken. I don't think Bio's incentives are to lowball EA here.

This is all assuming that the budget is drawn to the development plan, rather than the plan being made to fit the budget. We always used to make our plans with a pretty good idea of what top management would approve, though since my industry is relatively stable I don't know how relevant this is.

I love how you make the non VO protagonist out to be this unheard of thing from a "parallel universe" Plenty of current RPG's have non voiced PC's. Fallout NV being a good example. And still managed to be damn fine games without the hollywood cinematic experience that's such the craze these days.

Don't be silly, Sarah. (Gosh, I have to say that often.)

I don't know if Bio ever even considered making DA2 with a non-voiced protagonist, and I certainly don't know that they ever got as far as drawing up an actual alternative plan for EA with a non-voiced protagonist. So there may never have been any such plan in this universe. But it's not inconceivable that such a plan might have existed.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I guess I wasn't clear there. We're talking about Bio submitting two different possible  plans for approval to EA. Plan one is the plan we got, with a voiced protagonist. Obviously that plan needs a budget for the feature.

Then there's plan 2, maybe one that Bio discussed, maybe one from some parallel universe. No VO protagonist, therefore no money for that. Is plan 2 cheaper than plan one, or are the budgets approximately equal? My guess is that they'd likely be approximately equal, though we can't actually know anything about the road not taken. I don't think Bio's incentives are to lowball EA here.

This is all assuming that the budget is drawn to the development plan, rather than the plan being made to fit the budget. We always used to make our plans with a pretty good idea of what top management would approve, though since my industry is relatively stable I don't know how relevant this is.

I love how you make the non VO protagonist out to be this unheard of thing from a "parallel universe" Plenty of current RPG's have non voiced PC's. Fallout NV being a good example. And still managed to be damn fine games without the hollywood cinematic experience that's such the craze these days.

Don't be silly, Sarah. (Gosh, I have to say that often.)

I don't know if Bio ever even considered making DA2 with a non-voiced protagonist, and I certainly don't know that they ever got as far as drawing up an actual alternative plan for EA with a non-voiced protagonist. So there may never have been any such plan in this universe. But it's not inconceivable that such a plan might have existed.

Ahh ok, that makes a tad bit more of sense in that context then. I dunno, I would have just perfered they stick to the old school vibe that Origins had and kept the whole ME experience as its own series.

[Nighteye2]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ejoslin wrote...
Well, at least i do understand the voiced protagonist point of view a bit better.  Thank you!

As do I, though this has made it very clear that it isn't a playstyle I could ever enjoy.

Yes, some people prefer interactive movies over role-playing, bluntly put. I'm not one of those people. <_<

[upsettingshorts]

Nighteye2 wrote...
Yes, some people prefer interactive movies over role-playing, bluntly put. I'm not one of those people. <_<

Yes, some people like inaccurately summarizing opposing viewpoints in order to discredit them, blunt put.  I'm not one of those people.  <_<

...well, unless I've been drinking...

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 novembre 2010 - 10:57 .

[AlanC9]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Ahh ok, that makes a tad bit more of sense in that context then. I dunno, I would have just perfered they stick to the old school vibe that Origins had and kept the whole ME experience as its own series.

Sure. Even someone who likes the change -- or someone like me, who's basically indifferent -- ought to acknowledge that there are real costs to going with a VOP protagonist, costs that not all of us will think are worth paying.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Yes, some people prefer interactive movies over role-playing, bluntly put. I'm not one of those people. <_<

Yes, some people like inaccurately summarizing opposing viewpoints in order to discredit them, blunt put.  I'm not one of those people.  <_<

...well, unless I've been drinking...

Actually thats not too far from what it is really. When you really think about it.

[Atakuma]

dammit ninja'd by shorts:ph34r:

Modifié par Atakuma, 22 novembre 2010 - 11:03 .

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Actually thats not too far from what it is really. When you really think about it.

The problem is it ignores the key underlying premise:  To folks with approaches similar to mine, "roleplaying" as understood in this context has never been possible.  Not ever, not once.  To me, and those who approach these games in a similar way, it is fundamentally impossible in a scripted CRPG.  Therefore, it's not as if we prefer some new mechanic simply because it resembles an interactive movie, but because the differences to us between these features and more traditional ones are not as apparent as they are to you. 

For example, using the same metaphor, if Mass Effect 1-2 and Dragon Age 2 are "interactive movies" then in terms of how I approached them, Baldur's Gate was an interactive book.  I have used the "choose your own adventure book" comparison before.  It's simply another form of interactive roleplaying fiction, the fundamentals, for me - have not changed, simply evolved.

In summary, I can and have denied that "roleplaying" as such is possible in a CRPG, ergo the interactive book/movie approach to CRPGs is a valid approach to roleplaying even if the role of the protagonist is fixed or semi-fixed, because that's the nature of the medium.

There's a big difference there, and the oversimplification simply dismisses the underlying difference as some sort of false dichotomy.  The actual divide goes much deeper, and has existed far longer than either side really ever would have imagined until changes like those in DA:2 and Mass Effect 1-2 started being made.

I get the impression for example neither Sylvius nor I would ever have conceived of the other's approach before these changes started getting discussed on these forums.  They explain quite a bit about how so many features can be so polarizing.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 novembre 2010 - 11:08 .

[Atakuma]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Actually thats not too far from what it is really. When you really think about it.

Heavy rain is an interactive movie, DA2 is just cinematic in presentation

Modifié par Atakuma, 22 novembre 2010 - 11:09 .

[Nighteye2]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The problem is it ignores the key underlying premise:  To folks with approaches similar to mine, "roleplaying" as understood in this context has never been possible.  Not ever, not once.  To me, and those who approach these games in a similar way, it is fundamentally impossible in a scripted CRPG.  Therefore, it's not as if we prefer some new mechanic simply because it resembles an interactive movie, but because the differences to us between these features and more traditional ones are not as apparent as they are to you. 

For example, using the same metaphor, if Mass Effect 1-2 and Dragon Age 2 are "interactive movies" then in terms of how I approached them, Baldur's Gate was an interactive book.  I have used the "choose your own adventure book" comparison before.  It's simply another form of interactive roleplaying fiction, the fundamentals, for me - have not changed, simply evolved.

In summary, I can and have denied that "roleplaying" as such is possible in a CRPG, ergo the interactive book/movie approach to CRPGs is a valid approach to roleplaying even if the role of the protagonist is fixed or semi-fixed, because that's the nature of the medium.

That's just the thing, though: I do believe "roleplaying" as such is possible in a CRPG, albeit not to the extent that it is possible in a tabletop RPG. But given that limitation, I consider it a good thing to still get the most roleplaying allowed by the medium.

At which point does a CRPG series devolve into an interactive movie with RPG elements, I wonder?

[upsettingshorts]

Nighteye2 wrote...
At which point does a CRPG series devolve into an interactive movie with RPG elements, I wonder?

Heavy Rain?

[Dave of Canada]

*edit: fail*

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 novembre 2010 - 11:19 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Nighteye2 wrote...

That's just the thing, though: I do believe "roleplaying" as such is possible in a CRPG, albeit not to the extent that it is possible in a tabletop RPG. But given that limitation, I consider it a good thing to still get the most roleplaying allowed by the medium.

If what you consider a limitation isn't considered a limitation by others, there's a good chance that limitation gains the self-imposed status. Of course you're by all means free to regard voice acting as a limitation to your roleplaying experience, but all things considered, all it does is render the writer's tone (which is always there, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise) more visible during the process of delivering a line, although it will be already visible a few seconds later, when the second party opens their mouth in response. The rest is simply budget problems. Notice how I'm avoiding to go there.

At which point does a CRPG series devolve into an interactive movie with RPG elements, I wonder?

Heavy Rain mentioned above is a good example.

[Sir JK]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
Yes, some people prefer interactive movies over role-playing, bluntly put. I'm not one of those people. <_<

Yes, some people like inaccurately summarizing opposing viewpoints in order to discredit them, blunt put.  I'm not one of those people.  <_<
...well, unless I've been drinking...

Actually thats not too far from what it is really. When you really think about it.

I can only speak for myself naturally (and anyone sharing my position) but that is not a good summary of my viewpoint.

I like consequences and reactions in my roleplaying. It's a underlying fundament of it in fact, it is through choices and the reactions that I find who my character is this time. I interact with the world, pick the choices I think fits my characters best and then watches as the world reacts to that choice.

So I'm given a bunch of choice, some of which are ambigous enough to interpret several meanings. I might have x options but up to 2x interpretations.
However I only have x reactions. There lies the problem, I have more options than reactions. To some people this allows for greater freedom and more choices. But my approach is shackled. The illusion of communication shattered. The lack of reactions feel like a greater limitation than few options ever could.

That is why I prefer a voiced PC. Yes, I get fewer choices which is regretable. But at least the setting will react to what I say no matter what I choose. It's not perfect but it is, to me, acceptable.
Am I making sense?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The problem is it ignores the key underlying premise:  To folks with approaches similar to mine, "roleplaying" as understood in this context has never been possible.  Not ever, not once.  To me, and those who approach these games in a similar way, it is fundamentally impossible in a scripted CRPG.  Therefore, it's not as if we prefer some new mechanic simply because it resembles an interactive movie, but because the differences to us between these features and more traditional ones are not as apparent as they are to you. 

For example, using the same metaphor, if Mass Effect 1-2 and Dragon Age 2 are "interactive movies" then in terms of how I approached them, Baldur's Gate was an interactive book.  I have used the "choose your own adventure book" comparison before.  It's simply another form of interactive roleplaying fiction, the fundamentals, for me - have not changed, simply evolved.

In summary, I can and have denied that "roleplaying" as such is possible in a CRPG, ergo the interactive book/movie approach to CRPGs is a valid approach to roleplaying even if the role of the protagonist is fixed or semi-fixed, because that's the nature of the medium.

There's a big difference there, and the oversimplification simply dismisses the underlying difference as some sort of false dichotomy.  The actual divide goes much deeper, and has existed far longer than either side really ever would have imagined until changes like those in DA:2 and Mass Effect 1-2 started being made.

I get the impression for example neither Sylvius nor I would ever have conceived of the other's approach before these changes started getting discussed on these forums.  They explain quite a bit about how so many features can be so polarizing.

You're right.  If someone were to play Baldur's Gate in the manner than Mass Effect was, I think, intended to be played, I can see how there wouldn't be much difference between the games.

The difference is that Baldur's Gate allows the other playstyle (some would argue it favours the other playstyle), while Mass Effect is openly hostile to it.

Games that are clearly more favourable to the other playstyle (my playstyle) are games without full PC dialogue options, but instead use a keyword system (like the Elder Scrolsl games).  I don't see much difference in the roleplaying content between DAO or Morrowind or Ultima IV, but I suspect those who favour the ME-style of play see the games as vastly different.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're right.  If someone were to play Baldur's Gate in the manner than Mass Effect was, I think, intended to be played, I can see how there wouldn't be much difference between the games.

The difference is that Baldur's Gate allows the other playstyle (some would argue it favours the other playstyle), while Mass Effect is openly hostile to it.

Games that are clearly more favourable to the other playstyle (my playstyle) are games without full PC dialogue options, but instead use a keyword system (like the Elder Scrolsl games).  I don't see much difference in the roleplaying content between DAO or Morrowind or Ultima IV, but I suspect those who favour the ME-style of play see the games as vastly different.

I fall into what you refer to as the ME-style, and the problem for me personally, but having read the descriptions from 'pants and In Exile, I believe they're much the same, is really just characterisation when relating to traditional rpg's.

I empathise with a character based on the characterisation that will, in most similar media, be constructed within the narrative. In DAO, Morrowind and the like, I'm given little to no characterisation by the games themselves and so tend to view them as I might badly written characters in the film: I find it hard to care about them, or even remember them when the game is done.

Obviously, in reaction to that I do a little roleplaying to make it worthwhile. But as I'm massively unpracticed, not terribly interested and even less inclined to engage in that to any extent it generally results in a very basic, flimsy framework that could be described in one word. In DAO it was "angry".

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 23 novembre 2010 - 01:43 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You're right.  If someone were to play Baldur's Gate in the manner than Mass Effect was, I think, intended to be played, I can see how there wouldn't be much difference between the games.

The difference is that Baldur's Gate allows the other playstyle (some would argue it favours the other playstyle), while Mass Effect is openly hostile to it.

The important thing to keep in mind is that Mass Effect is far better at supporting the Mass Effect playstyle. This needs to be said, just to counter the claim that by creating a game that supports multiple playstyles, everyone can be happy.

Games that are clearly more favourable to the other playstyle (my playstyle) are games without full PC dialogue options, but instead use a keyword system (like the Elder Scrolsl games).  I don't see much difference in the roleplaying content between DAO or Morrowind or Ultima IV, but I suspect those who favour the ME-style of play see the games as vastly different.

Indeed, at least with Morrowind. I would say that Morrowind abandons any notion that the PC is even a person, using them in the most direct sense as an unfeeling and unmoving automaton. Morrowind probably combines the worst features of combat and role-play imaginable for me.

[Davasar]

I do not think that the play styles can ever be reconciled, look at all the strife here on these boards over it with multiple threads.



Bio alienated one play group to appease another. There's no way around it: one group will be unhappy.