Amioran wrote...
Only because you want to see it that way. I imagine when you meet someone you are one of those that inherently want them to be what you like, isn't it? Same goes with relationships. It is one of the primary human faults, the one of always wanting the other to be like you want it to be, the one of having control on everything.
This doesn't even vaguely relate to the topic. I'm not a player in the real world - I'm a character. And if players exist, I'm not aware of them (just as RPG characters are not aware of me).
It is a drawback only because you want to see the negative aspects of it. I already elencated the benefits but you really didn't care. You only cared about that you couldn't customize the archetypes to your wanting, nor having control over them. This, however, de-personalize those archetypes, because it is ineherent in the act of controlling (read Kant).
I have read Kant.
I hate Kant. The extent to which his ideas have informed social sciences over the past 100 years is appalling.
But again, I don't see the relevance to the topic at hand.
So you are telling me that all people complaining about being unable to have a balanced gameplay with a party of all warriors (for example) is a benefit of gameplay?
No. Those complaints aren;t part of gameplay.
But I do think that the inability to have any party you can imagine offer balanced is a benefit. What if the player wants unbalanced gameplay? If all parties are balanced, he can't have that.
No, they didn't felt like real people, they felt archetypes that you could customize to your whim.
You're looking at it from the player's perspective. I'm not. I'm saying they seem like real people from the characters' perspective. The PC perceives the companions as real people because
they are real people (from his point of view). And the details of their personalities are all there, because the player filled in all the gaps as necessary.
DA2's design seems to want to characters to seem like real people from the
player's perspective, which is an impossible task, and thus a foolish goal.
Real people are not like that. Now they have their inherent drawbacks and positives, and these are out of your control, as it happens in reality.
And the same was true in DAO. The characteristics of the companions were beyond the control of the Warden. But they were not beyond the control of the player, because the player is in control of his party in a party-based game (which DAO explicitly was).
You only think I'm wrong because you're failing to see the player and his character as distinct entities.
The "utilization" you talk about is tied to equipment, not on the inherent abilities (with positive and negative) of the character. There's a difference on the two. You tie utility with a specific arsenal, but that is not univoque. Isabela is a swashbuckler now, adept with daggers but not good with bows, why should she use one if it is not her style? If you are a fencing master I doubt you will use a bow (if you never trained on it) to fight someone, no matter the distance.
And if Isabela were a real person (from my point of view) this would matter. But she's not. She's a toy. If I want her to use a bow she's going to use a bow. Otherwise she's a defective toy.
Yes, from the PC's point of view Isabela does whatever Isabela wants to do. The PC can't read her mind, and has no real idea why she's choosing to use one weapon set rather than another. But none of that is at all relevant to the point I'm making.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
as it is currently understood in American media these days. (as being a mostly derogatory term for argument.)
