1044 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You find no value in atmosphere. You only want to role play.

I love atmosphere.  That's why I wanted the Deep Roads to be longer.  Atmosphere is a terrific help to roleplaying because it gives you a milieu in which to do it.  It gives you something to which to react.

But the characters in my party can't be part of that atmosphere without my consent, because I'm asked to make decisions on their behalf.

They are able to create an empathic conection with their characters and become emotionally involved in the game as a result, specifically, of the atmosphere the game creates.

Empathy is a lie.

That has nothing to do with this discussion, but I couldn't let an appeal to empathy pass without comment.  Sorry.

Saibh wrote...

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.

Those are UI elements.  What do they represent within the game?  Actual words?  General meaning?  Is there some gameplay benefit that arises from forcing everyone to perceive them similarly?

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

I can't, but then I'm not claiming that it's even true.

You're the one making claims.  The burden of evidence lies with you.

I mean, I can prove that the dialogue options presented are the Warden's,

No you can't.  the dialogue options are being presented to the player.  There's no evidence that the Warden is aware of them.

and the Warden says them.

I'll grant that in DAO the Warden is the one speaking.  That he speaks those exact words, though, is not established by the game.

You select which ones, but the Warden says them and picks those decisions.

No.  You select which dialogue options represent the Warden's speech.  Why he said those things, and what he meant by them, is left undefined.  You (the player) are free to resolve them as you see fit.

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

Why not?  Certainly we don't see it happen.  But we also don't know that it doesn't happen.  Whatever is or isn't happening between the Warden and Morrigan there is off-screen.  It is therefore, as above, undefined.

The characters, outside of the Warden, in DAO are not yours.

Stop presupposing your conclusion.  This question is exactly the one we're discussing.

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.

No, it's like you saying that they might, and that's true.  They might.  They could, certainly.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 janvier 2011 - 11:32 .

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
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.

I suppose you could technically choose to imagine that. But drawing the line at "what is seen on screen" seems distinctly un-arbitrary to me.

[Black_Warden]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...



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).

1) while admitting i haven't played the game, i feel that for me, having the companions be more defined and individual, and less under my control reinforces that they are their own characters, living their own stories which happen to require accompanying me on mine. this adds immersion for me and improves my enjoyment of the game



2) i sincerely doubt that Laidlaw, Gaider, and/or Priestly sat down at some early planning meeting and went "so.... DA2, working title "how to anger Sylvius"..... where do we start?"





well.... Gaider maybe....

[Sylvius the Mad]

moilami wrote...

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 or "lol woot is da best build 2 Morri" threads.

Great, so you actually think this is a good idea.

Why?  What do you actually gain from this?  What's the benefit?  This is what I'm asking, and no one is telling me.

What aspect of the game is improved by the player no longer having the option to make these sorts of core decisions about the companions?

[Saibh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I think which actions that the player is allowed to control is quite consistent. As the commander, you can order them to go here, hit that, use that attack. The true inconsistency is being able to strip clothes off, and make them run around in circles, but that's gameplay.

And DAII goes a bit further to cement consistency. You can't dress them, but you can give them advice (as the uber-powerful leader) on how to upgrade armor and they'll listen. You can shout orders on the battlefield, as the commander, all they'll listen.

You can't force Isabela to suddenly and inexplicably fall in love with Bethany (er, presumably).

The consistency that is important is characterization, as far as I am concerned. It's a video game because of the gameplay element. Remove the gameplay element, and I might as well read a choose-your-own adventure, or just write a book myself.

I realize I am arguing with Sylvius via the_one. Somehow.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I love atmosphere.  That's why I wanted the Deep Roads to be longer.  Atmosphere is a terrific help to roleplaying because it gives you a milieu in which to do it.  It gives you something to which to react.

But the characters in my party can't be part of that atmosphere without my consent, because I'm asked to make decisions on their behalf.

You're thinking about atmosphere as is created by imagery and sound in a visual narative, ie video game. I'm talking about the atmosphere that is created by using certain mechanics. For example shooter games are often called twitch games because the mechanics force you to rely on quick reflexes. DA][ is not a shooter game, but it's mechanical implimentation effects it's tone in a similar way. For some players this is a very good thing. So there is a form of benefit to it.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Empathy is a lie.

That has nothing to do with this discussion, but I couldn't let an appeal to empathy pass without comment.  Sorry.

You do not get to decide the emotional reactions of other players. Whatever your view of concept of empathy is, the fact of the matter is that the chosen presentation of the game is intended to garner a certain level of emotional response from the people playing the game. For many of those players this emotional response will come out in spades. If you choose to call that something other than empathy makes no difference to me. It happens. If you beleive that it does not happen, you are wrong.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:59 .

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

moilami wrote...

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 or "lol woot is da best build 2 Morri" threads.

Great, so you actually think this is a good idea.

Why?  What do you actually gain from this?  What's the benefit?  This is what I'm asking, and no one is telling me.

What aspect of the game is improved by the player no longer having the option to make these sorts of core decisions about the companions?

The companions become their own characters with their own preferences rather than yours, though I know you do not see that as an advantage, many do.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 17 janvier 2011 - 10:58 .

[the_one_54321]

Saibh wrote...
I realize I am arguing with Sylvius via the_one. Somehow.

No, you're not. Because I don't agree with Sylvius on how any of this is good or bad. I just think that it's unfair how so many will try to debunk what he says without even understanding what he's saying.

[Merced652]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

moilami wrote...

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 or "lol woot is da best build 2 Morri" threads.

Great, so you actually think this is a good idea.

Why?  What do you actually gain from this?  What's the benefit?  This is what I'm asking, and no one is telling me.

What aspect of the game is improved by the player no longer having the option to make these sorts of core decisions about the companions?

The only way they can reasonably answer this is gonig to echo what the devs have already said. They want a more character driven and "focused" story blah blah blah. I think thats bogus personally, you can deliver a good game without "focusing" on specific character or plots as well they know. But it simply wasn't the route they choice for various reasons. Many of which i would assume stem from a desire to deliver a cinematic "gaming" experience (what will they call it when it ceases to be a game at all? oh a movie).

Its a shame but one we'll be forced to live with, i highly doubt anything other than highly focused, rpg-lite, games will be made that are of the potential quality of something like DA:O. However, i'm sure DA2 will be a great game for what it will essentially be, which only time will properly classify.

[moilami]

[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

[quote]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?[/quote]
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.[/quote]

[/quote]

Very well written. I was first pissed I am forced to make compromises on how I play the game, but surprisingly I am happy NPCs now get more "free will" and specialize as they want. Hated always to mentally rape Morri and make her forget shapeshifting. Now the devs force us to play with new ruleset. The lost flexibility will suck, but still, no more Vynne as bloodmage and Morri forgetting shapeshifting!

I really though don't know which is better. In general choise is good, which would mean everyone would just be talking about power builds and using power builds. Now there is no choise. Can it really be good? It probably wont take long before some kind of mod comes which unlocks specializations for NPCs. After that DA2 FAQ lists that mod as essential download and forums are again filled with NPC build talk.

[Merced652]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Saibh wrote...
I realize I am arguing with Sylvius via the_one. Somehow.

No, you're not. Because I don't agree with Sylvius on how any of this is good or bad. I just think that it's unfair how so many will try to debunk what he says without even understanding what he's saying.

wondering how much time you've spent here if you think these forums have ever operated differently. Especially when criticizing a certain entity.

[Saibh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Those are UI elements.  What do they represent within the game?  Actual words?  General meaning?  Is there some gameplay benefit that arises from forcing everyone to perceive them similarly?

Actual words that you are speaking. This is not a nebulous gameplay element that makes no sense--you have options on what to say, and you must pick one.

I can't, but then I'm not claiming that it's even true.

You're the one making claims.  The burden of evidence lies with you.

Maybe you missed the part where you're claiming Morrigan can possibly be talking in the background where you can't see.

And the part where "these are the Wardens dialogue options and you must choose them" is an unequivocal truth.

No you can't.  the dialogue options are being presented to the player.  There's no evidence that the Warden is aware of them. I'll grant that in DAO the Warden is the one speaking.  That he speaks those exact words, though, is not established by the game.

Sure it is. I mean, you can say "I'm having spaghetti tonight" and I can pretend that you said "lo mein". Even if you eat lo mein, is that what you said?

Hell, I could even bring up that you said you'd have lo mein and then have spaghetti, with me being delusional, and you can say "no, I didn't". And I can just say you're lying.

I haven't changed what actually occured, I'm just deluding myself. That's what you're doing.

Why not?  Certainly we don't see it happen.  But we also don't know that it doesn't happen.  Whatever is or isn't happening between the Warden and Morrigan there is off-screen.  It is therefore, as above, undefined.

Like I said above, I can pretend something happened, and it doesn't mean it happened.

Stop presupposing your conclusion.  This question is exactly the one we're discussing.

The issue here is that you refuse to acknowledge basic truths. It's like arguing with an old person. By denying the basic truths, there is no argument to begin with. You can't prove anything.

Morrigan is not yours. Thus says BioWare.

Pretending she is yours does not make it so.

Modifié par Saibh, 17 janvier 2011 - 11:05 .

[AlanC9]

Saibh wrote...
I think which actions that the player is allowed to control is quite consistent. As the commander, you can order them to go here, hit that, use that attack.

Of course, we can do this even when the NPC is out of hearing range, and we can do it without enemies overhearing.

[Merci357]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

moilami wrote...

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 or "lol woot is da best build 2 Morri" threads.

Great, so you actually think this is a good idea.

Why?  What do you actually gain from this?  What's the benefit?  This is what I'm asking, and no one is telling me.

What aspect of the game is improved by the player no longer having the option to make these sorts of core decisions about the companions?

Isn't the answer obvious? If you believe your campanions are not yours to control (besides leading them in battle), if you believe they have their very own views, beliefs, identity, then it helps in creating a more fleshed out virtual personality you are dealing with. Isabela is a pirate, a swashbuckler. That's her profiency. Not Archery, she's not interchangeable with, say, Sebastian.
This establishes another layer of decisions in group composition. You can't just take one warrior, one mage, two rogues (random example) - and pick the one with the personality you like. You look at the task at hand, and pick those with the abilities most suited for it. And this might result in taking characters along who are not on the friendship path with Hawke, but rather on the rivalry patch. And this might lead to more dynamic groups, where not all are in agreement. Possible conflicts might arise, discussions, banter, choices to be made - a more vivid gaming experience.
Granted, this is, until I played it, just wishfull thinking, but 'm just using the game mechanics presented to us so far as my guideline.

[Heimdall]

AlanC9 wrote...

Saibh wrote...
I think which actions that the player is allowed to control is quite consistent. As the commander, you can order them to go here, hit that, use that attack.

Of course, we can do this even when the NPC is out of hearing range, and we can do it without enemies overhearing.

That's called, suspension of disbelief for gameplay mechanics.  Every game requires it to some extent.

[the_one_54321]

Merced652 wrote...
wondering how much time you've spent here if you think these forums have ever operated differently. Especially when criticizing a certain entity.

I've been here quite a long while, actually. And I'm quite used to how this typically functions. But Sylvius get's it far more than he deserves, as a result of his reasoning processes working in a way far far different from what most of the posters understand.

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

moilami wrote...

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 or "lol woot is da best build 2 Morri" threads.

Great, so you actually think this is a good idea.

Why?  What do you actually gain from this?  What's the benefit?  This is what I'm asking, and no one is telling me.

What aspect of the game is improved by the player no longer having the option to make these sorts of core decisions about the companions?

Well I could imagine one real benefit to be that for example with Morri as Shapeshifter they could include cinematics where Morri does some fully specialized shapeshifter stuff. Or they could make a quest where Morri's special abilities would be needed. In other words they could knit the story and characters more tightly together.

That is all I can imagine.

[Saibh]

AlanC9 wrote...

Of course, we can do this even when the NPC is out of hearing range, and we can do it without enemies overhearing.

Like I said, the game part of gameplay.

I honestly don't really care what the Warden is allowed to do and what the party members are allowed to do.

Roleplaying and gameplay do not always mesh without fail. I can't think of a single game where I can reasonably say "absolutely no part of this game interfered with roleplaying".

[Nighteye2]

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.

And if you consider it vital that you have a rogue in your party with a bow? Varric and he's again a character that is focused and defined. Very focused on Bianca, in his case.

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.

And yes, I'm aware that DA II is inconsistent with the ruleset of DA: O. Decisions to make changes were not made lightly, in part because we knew that there would be backlash from Origins fans. Change always results in backlash, but if you're convinced that you're making changes for the right reasons, you steel yourself and put up with it, and believe, as I do, that the results speak for themselves.

Yes it still feels arbitrary. Wouldn't it be better to have every class be able to use every weapon, even those that their classes won't ever be proficient with?

Why not let mages clumsily try shooting bows, if the player so wishes?

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
I suppose you could technically choose to imagine that. But drawing the line at "what is seen on screen" seems distinctly un-arbitrary to me.

But Sylvius doesn't. Let's say the City Elf's father says to the CE "you were taught martial training, and you are the bravest and most extroverted person in the world." This is on-screen content. Sylvius would say that if the PC knows that the PC was never taught any such thing and/or the PC knows that he/she is not an extrovert, then the CE's father is wrong.

Sylvius wants to say certain kinds of on-screen content cannot be ovewritten, but beyond a defence of "because this is the sort of content I want in game," he has no defence for it.

ETA:

I should add that I haven't seen a defence; that last sentence sounded far more hostile than I wanted it to.

Modifié par In Exile, 17 janvier 2011 - 11:25 .

[Vanni127]

Christ on a ******, people. How in the world has this troll thread lasted to 11 pages?



Rule number one of the internet: Don't feed the damn trolls.

[the_one_54321]

Saibh wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Of course, we can do this even when the NPC is out of hearing range, and we can do it without enemies overhearing.

Like I said, the game part of gameplay.

I honestly don't really care what the Warden is allowed to do and what the party members are allowed to do.

Roleplaying and gameplay do not always mesh without fail. I can't think of a single game where I can reasonably say "absolutely no part of this game interfered with roleplaying".

:

the_one_54321 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
It's not out of context. Sylvius just doesn't see the concept of "it's my game" in the same way that most gamers do. If you're going to have a conversation with him, this is the first thing you're going to have to accept. If not, you may as well be speaking a different language.

I guarantee, then, he has never, in his entire life, played a video game of someone else's making where it was "his game", if that's his definition.

If he thinks that the game should have no limitations set by the developers, then he's never played a video game that met his standard.

I don't think that he's ever claimed  that he actually ever has. Just that some games have been much better at
it and that all games should try to be as much like that as possible.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 17 janvier 2011 - 11:15 .

[Merced652]

Saibh wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Of course, we can do this even when the NPC is out of hearing range, and we can do it without enemies overhearing.

Like I said, the game part of gameplay.

I honestly don't really care what the Warden is allowed to do and what the party members are allowed to do.

Roleplaying and gameplay do not always mesh without fail. I can't think of a single game where I can reasonably say "absolutely no part of this game interfered with roleplaying".

So what exactly is your problem with him expressing that their new way of story delivery is execessively and needlessly interfereing with RP when they've shown they can make a successful game that did it to a much lesser extent? Or is this one of those, LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE things?

Modifié par Merced652, 17 janvier 2011 - 11:15 .

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
But Sylvius doesn't. Let's say the City Elf's father says to the CE "you were taught martial training, and you are the bravest and most extroverted person in the world." This is on-screen content. Sylvius would say that if the PC knows that the PC was never taught any such thing and/or the PC knows that he/she is not an extrovert, then the CE's father is wrong.

Sylvius wants to say certain kinds of on-screen content cannot be ovewritten, but beyond a defence of "because this is the sort of content I want in game," he has no defence for it.

Yes, I would call the example you just presented to be inconsistent and arbitrary.