1044 réponses à ce sujet

[PrinceOfFallout13]

so i read all the pages *ugh* and all boils down is that the tc just want to give the companions whatever weapon he wants am i correct?

[moilami]

the_one_54321 wrote...

If Sylvius is a troll. He is the best troll in history.

Haha, if he would be one, then I know better, some really good trolls. Which by the way hilariously enough contribute more facts and common sense to the forums than, say, 90% of the "non trolls".

[the_one_54321]

eyesofastorm wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
You rationalize Newton's Law of Motion?

No, he's saying that the mechanical calculations made by the game are the equivilant of the laws of physics in the game world.

Is it me or have things changed a bit since this crowd was last altogether here?  

edit:  I suppose it's possible you folks have been here debating DA2 for weeks or months.  This is the first one I've seen.

How do you mean? Yeah, we have been debating the pros and cons for some time now.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

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.[/quote]
This is true.  I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion, but In Exile has accurately described my position on off-screen content.
[quote]Meltemph wrote...

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.[/quote]
That is what explicit means.
[quoet]Willful ignorance is not the same thing as a lack of knowledge[/quote]
It is, actually.  It's a proper subset of a lack of knowledge.
[quote]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. [/quote]
The story is just the narrative that follows the characters' decisions and actions.  I'm not sure it makes any sense to judge its quality.
[quote]Black_Warden wrote...

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[/quote]
That would require that the characters not being yours - being somehow independent from you, the player - has some value for you.
[quote]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. 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.[/quote]
That would only make sense if the player somehow lost control of the battlefield action whenever Hawke was unconscious.

Like ME does it.
[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

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. [/quote]
Oh, like how shooter mechanics produce a necessary franticness on the part of the player.

I hate that.  The in-game action isn't about me.  It's about the characters (which I am not).
[quote]Lord Aesir wrote...

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.[/quote]
That doesn't answer the question.  Since the characters can already be that without restricting the players' choices (the player simply has to choose to retain that NPC independence), that's not a benefit.

What you're saying is like forcing me to move from my house into a new one and then claiming you helped me because now I have a house.

[Nighteye2]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
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?

the_one_54321 wrote...
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.

Yes, but not all loss of freedom does that. Only loss of freedom that feels natural, like not learning special bow skills because your class has never learned how to properly handle a bow and lacks the basic skills to use a bow well. But you should avoid loss of freedom that feels arbitrary, like not being able to equip a bow at all.

It's the same reason why games should avoid invisible walls - those feel arbitrary, too, even if they do serve a purpose.

[eyesofastorm]

the_one_54321 wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
You rationalize Newton's Law of Motion?

No, he's saying that the mechanical calculations made by the game are the equivilant of the laws of physics in the game world.

Is it me or have things changed a bit since this crowd was last altogether here?  

edit:  I suppose it's possible you folks have been here debating DA2 for weeks or months.  This is the first one I've seen.

How do you mean? Yeah, we have been debating the pros and cons for some time now.

Best not get into it.  No point in being inflammatory at this juncture... or any juncture I suppose.  I guess it goes to show how little I poke my head in here that I've missed these debates.  You could randomly generate names and reassign them to you guys and I'd still know who was who I think.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is true.  I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion, but In Exile has accurately described my position on off-screen content.

It shows people how you think. Beyond that, it shows them things that don't bother you. All a reduction to the absurd is, basically, is just a claim that the argument has consequences that are too unacceptable to continue holding the claim. But of course, you generally would never buy such a grounds for rejection.

To get you, people need to get this about you.

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

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.

That doesn't answer the question.  Since the characters can already be that without restricting the players' choices (the player simply has to choose to retain that NPC independence), that's not a benefit.

What you're saying is like forcing me to move from my house into a new one and then claiming you helped me because now I have a house.

Not really, this is more similar to someone not moving from his house just because you say so.  To some that adds a level of beleivability to the character, that they aren't just manaquins for you to dress up and arm.

Previously a character could only be that if the player deigned to allow to.  To some this just makes the characters seem hollow.

You may not see it as a benefit but as it is subjective that hardly matters.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 18 janvier 2011 - 12:02 .

[Saibh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That would only make sense if the player somehow lost control of the battlefield action whenever Hawke was unconscious.

Like ME does it.

Very true. I forgot DAO works differently. I retract that argument.

[RohanD]

Ok I am cool with warriors not dual wielding, further defining classes etc, but wait - you give examples of rule sets for classes and then break these immediately. Isabella is a rogue, specializing as a dualist. Since dualist is a child of the parent class - rogue, it should intrinsically inherit the abilities of a rogue, not lose some. It makes no sense.

[Xewaka]

JohnEpler wrote...
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.

The original context is, if I'm not mistaken, that during the trials of the paraphrase vs full text line, the subtitles were turned off during the paraphrase trials so it produced the data that during paraphrases people would listen to the voice acting.
I can't quite remember the exact post by Gaider, and i can't quite remember to which thread it corresponds. I'll try to fish the exact quote if I have time.

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.

What are people who have the game subbed but not dubbed supposed to do? I mean, I can understand spoken english (unless it's an american accent), but in Spain english is not a prominent language and most players from here will simply read the subtitles and move on.
In this particular case (subtitles and no dub), the system as is on Dragon Age 2 offers zero benefit for a rather gross loss.

[Sylvius the Mad]

moilami wrote...

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!

So why do it?  If you hate doing it, don't do it.

If you can't play the game the way you'd prefer (even though it's an option) without the game forcing you to do it, then I can understand your preference for the restriction.

But I find it hard to believe that this is a real problem.

Saibh wrote...

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.

There are options, yes.  You have to pick one, yes.  What do those options represent (if anything) in the game world?

Assuming you've ever played an Elder Scrolls game, what do you think those keywords represent in the game world?  Actual words?  Is your character actually shouting one-word at a time to elicit a response on that topic?

Assuming you don't think that of TES, why do you think that UI element is an abstraction but DAO's cannot be?

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

Possible and is are very different things.

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

Agreed.  And pretending that something didn't happen doesn't mean that it didn't happen.  You can pretend Morrigan didn't whisper in the Warden's ear all you want.  Go ahead! It's your game, after all.

The issue here is that you refuse to acknowledge basic truths.

They haven't yet been established as true.  If you think they have, by all means show me.

Morrigan is not yours. Thus says BioWare.

Why is that a compelling reason?  BioWare's preference doesn't change the content of the game.

[Heimdall]

RohanD wrote...

Ok I am cool with warriors not dual wielding, further defining classes etc, but wait - you give examples of rule sets for classes and then break these immediately. Isabella is a rogue, specializing as a dualist. Since dualist is a child of the parent class - rogue, it should intrinsically inherit the abilities of a rogue, not lose some. It makes no sense.

For the benefit of focusing on a more particular and more in depth set of skills, yes it does.

[Lethys1]

Successful troll is successful.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
The original context is, if I'm not mistaken, that during the trials of the paraphrase vs full text line, the subtitles were turned off during the paraphrase trials so it produced the data that during paraphrases people would listen to the voice acting.

And, as some of us mentioned in that very thread, people are discounting that reading something could reduce the enjoyment of hearing something, without actually proving there is not as great an interesting in hearing it to begin with.

[C-Gamer90]

This thread has made me facepalm more times than I thought was possible in a day.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote..
There are options, yes.  You have to pick one, yes.  What do those options represent (if anything) in the game world?

Assuming you've ever played an Elder Scrolls game, what do you think those keywords represent in the game world?  Actual words?  Is your character actually shouting one-word at a time to elicit a response on that topic?

Accesing the codex. It isn't a real conversation at all. I am firmly of the opinion that such a design decision precludes the posibility of any kind of character at all. It reduces the protagonist to what you had in old FPS games like Doom.

[The Gentle Ben]

Sylvius has always been primarily concerned with agency, while most players value possibilities. I'm not certain if he sees those two in conflict, as the greater implementation of one seems destined to limit the other.

My principle contention is with his assertion of ownership over a game's designed implementation. I've never really role-played (I'm not those characters, why should I pretend to be those characters? They are distinct created entities), I direct the development of the story along the lines I prefer within the parameters the developers establish (which led Sylvius to inform me in a year gone by that I am playing the game wrong, and my opinions are therefore irrelevant).

I view a video game (at least as Bioware designs them) as no different from say, a Lone Wolf book. Once you buy it, sure you own it, but you have no control over the content within beyond, I suppose, your own ability to modify it. You can navigate that content however you see fit, but Bioware is under no obligation to enable playstyles other than those they intend. That doesn't make their implementations the right ones or necessitate agreement (I still wish warriors could dual wield), but it is their prerogative.

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 18 janvier 2011 - 12:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Merci357 wrote...

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.[/quote]
One doesn't require the other.  You can believe those things all you want without them being necessarily true for all players.

Why do you need my consent (that is, the tacit approval of all other players) to hold a specific belief about a member of your party?  Why is your belief alone not enough?
[quote]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.[/quote]
And that does have some appeal, but that appeal lasts for one character.  The next time I play (with a very different Hawke) I know how the personalities work, and I know what skills and talents they have.  I can't mix and match to create those dynamic parties on purpose.

Also, this dramatically reduces the number of different party configurations available to us.  The all-archer party, for example, appears to be unavailable to us in DA2.
[quote]Lord Aesir wrote...

[/quote]That's called, suspension of disbelief for gameplay mechanics.  Every game requires it to some extent.
[/quote]
And some games seem to go out of their way to require more of it.
[quote]moilami wrote...

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.[/quote]
Wouldn't that just make the story feel contrived?  Hmm, I need a shapeshifter here, and oh look, I just happen to have one!
[quote]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.[/quote]
No, that's patently false, and you know it (or you should).

If I have knowledge that the PC was never taught any such thing, then yes, that would mean that the PC's father was wrong.  But that doesn't overwrite any on-screen content.  The content was only that the PC's father said that it was true.  The actual truth of the father's remark is not on-screen.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No, that's patently false, and you know it (or you should).

If I have knowledge that the PC was never taught any such thing, then yes, that would mean that the PC's father was wrong.  But that doesn't overwrite any on-screen content.  The content was only that the PC's father said that it was true.  The actual truth of the father's remark is not on-screen.

I didn't want to have to clarify this because it would become confusing for people.

What you consider "on-screen" and what most people consider "on-screen" isn't the same thing. But it doesn't matter in this context.

What you are saying is that every kind of evidence is overwriten by what the PC knows/experiences, which can include things like cut-scenes (you granted this, when acknowledging the Duncan issue).

I know that you view each character in the game as unreliable, but not all (in fact, I would argue most do not) do this. When a character says something about the PC in the introduction, the general inclination is to take this as an authorial fact about the PC versus the character's delusion. Yet you would make such a distinction.

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

No, that's patently false, and you know it (or you should).

If I have knowledge that the PC was never taught any such thing, then yes, that would mean that the PC's father was wrong.  But that doesn't overwrite any on-screen content.  The content was only that the PC's father said that it was true.  The actual truth of the father's remark is not on-screen.

...seems to me you just claimed that In Exile was wrong and then proceeded to describe the exact same thing.  What is the difference,=?  Since you seem to agree with his characterization.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

There is a better retort - it is gameplay element, just like HP metres (which are not how the world truly functions), levels, and other such abstractions.

All that you need to defend then is gameplay/story segregation.

Or you could hold that HP meters and the like are how the world truly functions and that cinematics that contradict those mechanics are simply unreliable narrators.

Both approaches rely on one foundationless claim.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius isn't a troll. He's an idiosyncratic volunteer game development auditor.

This would make a terrific signature.

Lord Aesir wrote...

You rationalize Newton's Law of Motion?

No, I make decisions based on my awareness of how the world around me follows simple rules at the macro-level.

Saibh wrote...

This makes no sense in real life. None. How do reading Codexes and doing nothing but reading Codexes give you the power to better dodge arrows, take axes to the head, wear plate armor, or pick locks, if they have nothing to do with any of those?

Guess what?  Fictional setting.  Its physical laws (and the biomechanical consequences of them) are its own.

In Exile wrote...

It is. The preponderance of evidence points to it being true. Which, of course, you don't think is evidence.

If you were trying to draw a line between true and false, sure.  But a line between possibly true and false requires certainty.  That's how possibility works.

These laws of motion don't actually describe the fundamental rules of the universe insofar as physics is concerned. If we are going to be purely philosophical about it, without allowing abudction as a justified form of reaosning, the logical concluson is that they don't describe anything more than a convenient mathematical shortform that allows for technological advances.

Yes.  Just like game mechanics.

Lord Aesir wrote...

Not really, this is more similar to someone not moving from his house just because you say so.

No, no, no, no, no.

You just completely discarded the player/character distinction, and now we need to back up and rebuild it.

Your claim was that you were giving me, a player, a new feature by turning off some other feature.  The new feature you supposedly gave me was already there, but now I'm forced to use it because you've disabled the alternative.

Then here you started talking about controlling characters as if they were puppets, which made no sense at all.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 janvier 2011 - 12:23 .

[Xewaka]

Lord Aesir wrote...
...seems to me you just claimed that In Exile was wrong and then proceeded to describe the exact same thing.  What is the difference,=?  Since you seem to agree with his characterization.

The difference it that Sylvius does not deny what happened on-screen, simply questions his veracity. That is, that what is being told onscreen may be a lie or misinformation, but it is being told.

[Heimdall]

Xewaka wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
...seems to me you just claimed that In Exile was wrong and then proceeded to describe the exact same thing.  What is the difference,=?  Since you seem to agree with his characterization.

The difference it that Sylvius does not deny what happened on-screen, simply questions his veracity. That is, that what is being told onscreen may be a lie or misinformation, but it is being told.

...so he choses what or what not is true based off his preference as long as it is not unequivocally proven without a shadow of a doubt on screen?

[-flashblade-]

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.

By writing this you just confirmed that a voiced PC is making its decision independently from the player, interesting. Thats exactly how I see it as well.

Merced652 wrote...
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.

Merced652 what ME and ME2 delivered and what DAII is going to deliver is essentially an interactive movie experience and not a roleplaying game, since I can't make any decisions at all. All I can do is play the devil and the angel on the shoulder, urging the character to do something I'd like him to do. But that is not roleplaying at all.