1044 réponses à ce sujet

[Saibh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No.  We don't see him make those decisions.  We don't hear his thoughts.  There's no reason at all for you to hold this position you've just described.

Yes we do.

Show me.  Show me where in DAO I can see the Warden making a decision.

You can't do that, because it's not there.

Sylvius.

The Warden says it. The dialogue options, those right on your screen? Those are the Warden's dialogue options and he is speaking them. You don't hear them, because he is not voiced. That changes nothing.

No, saying "I pick Harrowmont" is saying "I pick Harrowmont."  Why the Warden is saying that is up to you.  Maybe he's doing Morrigan's bidding.

Show me. Right now, prove to me Morrigan is telling him that.

I mean, I can prove that the dialogue options presented are the Warden's, and the Warden says them. You select which ones, but the Warden says them and picks those decisions.

You can argue he's being influenced by Morrigan. But that she is literally saying "pick Harrowmont" in the background? No.

The characters, outside of the Warden, in DAO are not yours. You do not get to pick how they think, what they say. You can mod it, but they are no longer the same person. By projecting your

The game does not specifically tell you at every instance "And Morrigan said nothing", and it's your perogative to believe they she may have. But it's like me saying that, because Huck and Tom never explicitly lay out they don't have secret romantic feelings, that they do.

Slyvius, you don't want to play a game, you want to control a game. That's not what BioWare is offering you.

[the_one_54321]

Saibh wrote...
Show me. Right now, prove to me Morrigan is telling him that.

Because in his imagination that's what happened. And as much as you may like to interpret the game based on what the developers intended (so do I) you can't tell someone what they can and can't imagine on their own about a story.

What's different now is that you actually see the character talk and do and decide things. So that freedom to imagine random events is lost.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Leader of the group does not equal protagonist, but even if it did all this shows is Alistair's opinion.  And he might be wrong.

I'd say it would be an accurate assumption to say that the character you create is always the protagonist (or the main character of the story). Whatever you do, the events always follow your character and require that he/she remain the center stage of events. Your character does most (if not all) the talking, your character is always required to be in the party, and most Bioware games have created some special attribute for your character on which the plot hinges.

Even going back to Baldur's Gate, yes, you could control the entire party. But notice that if you pissed off your party members in BG1, you didn't have the option to control them if it came to blows. Everything you do is noticeably centered around the PC, your created character.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:29 .

[Guitar-Hero]

JohnEpler wrote...

shayboy4 wrote...

I can see where you're coming from
But seriously? you cant skip dialogue? WHAT THE HECK!
what if you're restarting the game and dont wanna hear the story again.
very poor decision Bioware.

You can skip dialogue. I'm unsure what the original context was of the quote in question, but I can tell you that you are definitely able to skip lines.

I mean, we'd prefer that you didn't, but if you really want to, that's cool. We'll just, you know, be over here. Crying.

Have an issue, heres a tissue
what about the opening scene, is it going to be like mass effect 2? i only ask because i plan on playing it over and over again.

[Mike Laidlaw]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
As I understand it, your idea of roleplaying extends to the entire party, while Bioware's idea is focused on you, the player character.

No, Sylvius actually would prefer either complete control of all the party members or zero control of the party members. Roleplaying consistencty.

So, then I would recommend Final Fantasy or Storm of Zehir, depedning on mood.

Either way, Dragon Age II is its own beast, and the discussion between Sylvius and I will soon devolve into the fact that the things he sees as a negative are not things I see as a negative, and two distinctly opposed positions may as well not enter into the debate unless both sides are enjoying the rolicking discussion, and sadly, I'm too busy and tired to hold up my end of said enjoyment.

Crunch takes its toll, folks!

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Kane-Corr wrote...

I whole-heartedly agree with Bioware on this. Just like in Mass Effect 2...it makes MORE sense that you are restricted in dressing your companion, and limited to giving them certain weapons in some respect. Think about real life...you're NOT going to babysit your allies by dressing them, equipping them, bathing them etc! OP, you must discover for yourself that Bioware did the right thing here. Just worry about your own character, Hawke, and enjoy the company of your companions as you move forward in your quest.

Agreed.. although I imagine your latter comment to fall on deaf ears as it is clear Sylvius is well and truly MAD.

Using the ruleset that they have applied I am quite sure I will be able to play the game within those rules to the way I want my character to develop just as I have with all other games in the past. So whilst Bioware made the game and the rules, I will make the story happen the way I want to... well more so on subsequent playthroughs as obviously first time (and maybe some more after) I'll be finding out what is in store.

See that is where the double delight is for me, finding out about all the lore and story of the game occurs due to my decisions on the initial playthrough then of course utilising that information for subsequent playthroughs to see the differences in the storytelling by me making other decisions. That is one of the reasons I love bioware games so much is their ability to allow us to do this.

How many games are there out there where a company allows for choices to be made that can affect the outcome one way or another? Not many that I can think of. There are far more 'linear' storys with very limited choices (if any at all) than there are ones with choices. Thankfully Bioware makes games that allow such choices to be made.

Edit: As for 'choice' of what my party members do, well personally I like the idea that I am more in control of Hawke and not having to play parent for the 'followers' as far as dress sense or combat sense matters. I am controlling Hawke and they are following me but only thing I can truly say that I am doing is governing what tactics they use to best utilise their skills. Varric loves Bianca so the two will most likely be in the back row (NOT that sort of back row!) shooting away at whatever I direct them to. Isabella loves duelling so she'll be dodging, ducking, diping around swinging her daggers about and I think she is perfectly fine doing so in her outfit we know she wears because she be a duellist, doesn't need to be decked out in the toughest head to toe leather armor suit money can buy.

Mr Laidlaw and Bioware team, keep making the games you love making and those of us with sense will keep loving playing said games, because they are ridiculously awesome!

Modifié par Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:39 .

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...

What's different now is that you actually see the character talk and do and decide things. So that freedom to imagine random events is lost.

This is where Sylvius is actually inconsistent. There is no reason not to invent further content like this even with a speaking character. 

It is technically true that Flemeth could be controlling Hawke's mind all throughout DA2 just like it is technically possible that Duncan is alive and leading the party in DA:O, per the standard that Sylvius sets out (i.e. could be true with the only acceptable evidence the beliefs of the PC the player chooses to endorse).

[nightcobra]

Lilacs wrote...

Sylvius, if you see it in the way Lead Designer Mike Laidlaw logically puts it. The restriction, makes sense within DA II. Those Character simply have a preferred fighting style and or equipment.

i agree to the change, if only because now i have to choose more carefully who i want to bring to the party according to the situation rather than having my companions just changing their weapon sets.

[Saibh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Saibh wrote...
Show me. Right now, prove to me Morrigan is telling him that.

Because in his imagination that's what happened. And as much as you may like to interpret the game based on what the developers intended (so do I) you can't tell someone what they can and can't imagine on their own about a story.

What's different now is that you actually see the character talk and do and decide things. So that freedom to imagine random events is lost.

If he roleplays the Warden as someone who hears Morrigan's voice in his ear, like a little shoulder devil, telling him what to do, he's free to.

But he can't roleplay Morrigan. Morrigan is not his. She's BioWare's, made into a character unto herself, and not under his domain. His command, certainly, but not for him to control and manipulate without the Warden's influence.

Modifié par Saibh, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:33 .

[moilami]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If she can't use a bow, where's the benefit?  What do the players get out of that restriction?  Where's the payoff?

The benefit is that a character who was defined in Origins as being a duelist, to the point where she was the only way to learn to be a duelist in the course of the main campaign, remains consistent in her preferred weapons, and thus remains a more consistent and defined character who comes with, again, her own pros and cons.

*snip*

In all honesty, arguments can be made for letting your followers use any weapons or restricted to only a certain class. You can argue that ANY game mechanic is better than it's exact opposite. For me, the important part is that we be consistent, and within DA II, we are.

Ah, now I understood that previous post about game rules. Mad did not understand it but just begun to argue and deny it.

To put it short: In previous games we had rules. Now the rules has changed and thus we have new rules. The new rules essentially say it is not anymore possible to mind control Morrigan to forget Shapeshifter (in DA2 it seems it is not possible to make Isabella forget duelist).

That is one new rule, and I for one am very suprised how the devs dared to do such kind of rule. Personally I welcome the rule and will begin to celebrate in advance how I wont see a single "lol u should build Morri/Leliana/whatever 2 be <insert your favorite PP build here> or "lol woot is da best build 2 Morri" threads.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not...Mordin wrote...

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

The thing is though for some of us we do think it is getting better as a result. We like that we have more defined characters, that they will be more unique visually, stats wise and personality wise. On a purely gameplay level too the companion specific specializations also is another benefit of this restriction. We get more unique gameplay abilities and also make the character more unique.

Seconded.

I am not suggesting any change that prevents that.  I have no objection to you leaving Isabela in her signatuire outfit, or having her use her signature weapon style.  Go ahead!  It's your game, after all.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sometimes mechanics are sacrificed for style, and some people see that as a distinct impvement.

And I'm pointing out that they could have both without losing anything.

Given that, what's the benefit in losing the mechanics?

Merci357 wrote...

If you ever wanted a reason why I prefer a voiced PC, there it is, in your very own words. I want to see her making the decisions, not only the reactions to them. I want to hear her thoughts, not only in my imagination.

Words are not thoughts.

the_one_54321 wrote...

But you are given a concrete mechanical indication that the character is the one making the decisions.

Where?  I didn't see one.

You're not writing the story this time. BioWare is. And if you think you'll like the story then you can play their game.

I don't play BioWare's games for the story.  I play BioWare's games for the roleplaying.  And they're better at offering me roleplaying than any other current designer I know.

BioWare does tend to tell stories well.  I enjoyed how the BG story unfolded as you discovered it; it reminded me of Ultima VII.  But the stories themselves have tended to be fairly simple.

DA2 looks like it might finally be something other than a Kill Foozle plot, so I'm quite excited about it.

Lord Aesir wrote...

I think Sylvius confuses gameplay mechanics with roleplaying.

What reason would I ever have for drawing a distinction between the two?

[the_one_54321]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
 the discussion between Sylvius and I
will soon devolve into the fact that the things he sees as a negative are not things I see as a negative

That was actually more or less my first post in this thread..

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
What's different now is that you actually see the character talk and do and decide things. So that freedom to imagine random events is lost.

This is where Sylvius is actually inconsistent. There is no reason not to invent further content like this even with a speaking character. 

It is technically true that Flemeth could be controlling Hawke's mind all throughout DA2 just like it is technically possible that Duncan is alive and leading the party in DA:O, per the standard that Sylvius sets out (i.e. could be true with the only acceptable evidence the beliefs of the PC the player chooses to endorse).

He can do that, sure. But what was actually acted out on screen can't be changed or deleted. There's still less freedom. (again, this doesn't mean I think it's a bad thing)

Modifié par the_one_54321, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:39 .

[Il Divo]

In Exile wrote...

This is where Sylvius is actually inconsistent. There is no reason not to invent further content like this even with a speaking character. 

It is technically true that Flemeth could be controlling Hawke's mind all throughout DA2 just like it is technically possible that Duncan is alive and leading the party in DA:O, per the standard that Sylvius sets out (i.e. could be true with the only acceptable evidence the beliefs of the PC the player chooses to endorse).

The mistake is definitely in people assuming voiced PC = no motivation. It really all depends on dialogue. Look at the Harrowmont example.

If you have a silent protagonist, the writers could have decided that you can say:

1) I pick Harrowmont.
2) I pick Harrowmont, because Balon is corrupt and will kill all opposition.

Whether the dialogue is spoken or not does not actually affect what words the PC says. If the first option, we only have the conclusion so we are free to imagine whatever motivation we want for our character. The second one provides a much more narrow motivation, which could limit our ability to imagine whatever motivation we want.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:36 .

[WidowMaker9394]

Think of it like a book. You can own a book but it's not your book.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Because the game's story is framed around the character they choose. Sure, you can choose to ignore the intentions of the writers dialog and framework, but that makes things inconsistent with the structure of the story. You are essentially "making it work" and that, if it is not considered inconsistent, then it at the very least is a bad story(which is the worst offense to me).

If those intentions aren't explicit within the game, then there's nothing to ignore.

StormbringerGT wrote...

Are you saying they should make the game for you and not for me?

Not at all.  I'm saying they shouldn't go out of their way to exclude me unless by doing so they improve the game for someone else.

And they've havne't done that here (or if they have, they've done a terrible job of selling it).

the_one_54321 wrote...

Because they wanted rogues to feel different from warriors. That means less freedom in constructing a class, because each class now does more specialized, less open ending things.

This is explcitly something to which I'm not objecting in this thread.  They can design classes however they want.  It's their setting.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And I'm pointing out that they could have both without losing anything.

Given that, what's the benefit in losing the mechanics?

You're not paying attention. Limiting the mechanics creates a certain style and atmosphere in the game. The loss of freedom forces the game to be played a certain way and the benefit is in the presentation that is created by forcing this style. For those that are only interested in freedom, this is a bad thing. For those that are interested in the style and feel of a game, the atmosphere, this is a good thing.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Where?  I didn't see one.

You made a dialog choice. The character  you are interacting with has been shown, visually and sometimes auditorily when refering to "Warden," to be specifically speaking with your character. This indicates that your character has made a decision. Potentially you can imagine that things happened off screen, but what you actually experience in the game world is that the Warden made a decision.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't play BioWare's games for the story.

Granted, but BioWare presenets games for the story. Quite the cunundrum for you.

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

I think Sylvius confuses gameplay mechanics with roleplaying.

What reason would I ever have for drawing a distinction between the two?

  So how do you incorperate the damage calculations and level up screens into your roleplaying?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is explcitly something to which I'm not objecting in this thread.  They can design classes however they want.  It's their setting.

But it creates a concrete limitation to your ability to control your character. I'm not saying that you should object. Just relating it to your concept of role playing consistency.

[Merci357]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is explcitly something to which I'm not objecting in this thread.  They can design classes however they want.  It's their setting.

You can accept that, just like it? How is saying, a warrior can't use a bow any different to saying a swashbuckler (as a specialty class) can't use a bow?

Modifié par Merci357, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:42 .

[the_one_54321]

Saibh wrote...
But he can't roleplay Morrigan. Morrigan is not his. She's BioWare's, made into a character unto herself, and not under his domain. His command, certainly, but not for him to control and manipulate without the Warden's influence.

This goes back to role playing consistency. He's allowed to control some of Morrigan's actions, but not all of them. Something he sees as a flaw in design.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
He can do that, sure. But what was actually acted out on screen can't be changed or deleted. There's still less freedom. (again, this doesn't mean I think it's a bad thing)

Sylvius believes the ultimate authority on what happened is what the PC knows to be true. If the PC "knows" that Duncan lived at Ostagar (the PC can "see" Duncan, and off-screen Duncan gives orders) then the actual death of Duncan at Ostagar may have just been a vision by the archdemon or a fevered dream (after all, the PC was not there and was hit by an arrow) and quite clearly off-screen content justifies Duncan being there. That for some reason Alistair believes he is dead is just proof Alistair has gone insane from the attack; Duncan, after all, is quite clearly alive.

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
He can do that, sure. But what was actually acted out on screen can't be changed or deleted. There's still less freedom. (again, this doesn't mean I think it's a bad thing)

Sylvius believes the ultimate authority on what happened is what the PC knows to be true. If the PC "knows" that Duncan lived at Ostagar (the PC can "see" Duncan, and off-screen Duncan gives orders) then the actual death of Duncan at Ostagar may have just been a vision by the archdemon or a fevered dream (after all, the PC was not there and was hit by an arrow) and quite clearly off-screen content justifies Duncan being there. That for some reason Alistair believes he is dead is just proof Alistair has gone insane from the attack; Duncan, after all, is quite clearly alive.

Has he actually said something like that? Because that sounds like a stretch, even for Syvius' imagination.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Has he actually said something like that? Because that sounds like a stretch, even for Syvius' imagination.

No; but there is no reason Sylvius can give for why this scenario is not true and yet still justify either off-screen content or imagined content in general. This is just a reductio for his position.

ETA:

He never actually outlined such a RP scenario (Duncan alive). He does believe the PC's beliefs as endorsed by the player are the only evidentiary authority.

Modifié par In Exile, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:47 .

[Meltemph]

If those intentions aren't explicit within the game, then there's nothing to ignore.

Ignoring the intentions makes the story worse, that alone is explicit enough. Besides, the only way it could get any more explicit if they literally spelled it out for you. Willful ignorance is not the same thing as a lack of knowledge, you can not claim since the PC doesn't know it you can't know it, you just choose to ignore it.



Ignoring the structure of the story is to make it worse. Your examples of changes in the story that you take, make no sense to me, so I won't agree with your perception until you actually show me how you can improve the story based on your way of perceiving events in the game.



Until then I will say the way you do things is an inferior way of telling the story, which I would then lean a lot more to not wanting the developers to cater to that, at all.