1044 réponses à ce sujet

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Haha, it is a real problem. Why still do it? Because I would hate also to not do it. See? Two choises and I hate both. It can happen. Guess then will I chose to make Morri learn something more useful than shapeshifting?

Now with these new rules I don't have that kind of sucky choise anymore. Also the companions will have more depth in them, at the cost of I as a player having less control.

That was a daring choise by BioWare, but it seems it was the right choise. At least people complain of it much less than I would had imagined.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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?

This might not be the best example. Elder Scrolls does make use of subtitles, but it also uses actual dialogue lines to distinguish when your character is making a specific statement. For general conversation, you have categories like 'rumors', 'Place', 'Mages Guild' where you are supposed to infer that your character is asking a question.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 janvier 2011 - 12:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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

the_one could have understood that difference.  You grossly misrepresented my position.

What you consider "on-screen" and what most people consider "on-screen" isn't the same thing.

What?  How is that even possible?

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).

That's actually a consequence of my solution to the gameplay/story dichotomy.  If cutscenes are unreliable narrators, the dichotomy goes away.

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

What?  Why would they do that.  That's completely insane.  Why would anyone trust everything they ever hear people say?

Lord Aesir wrote...

...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?

Yes, that's exactly right.

And you can too.  If you want to roleplay a character who travelled in from a faraway land of your own imagining, the game doesn't stop you.

If find these to be very useful roleplaying exercises.

[upsettingshorts]

Lord Aesir wrote...

...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?

He doesn't choose so much as his character does. 

Edit: Maybe not.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What?  Why would they do that.  That's completely insane.  Why would anyone trust everything they ever hear people say?

I believe he was referring to passive, genre-savvy metagaming.

In the sense that the player would treat the example of the City elf's father as exposition.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 janvier 2011 - 12:32 .

[Kinkaku]

I can't believe I read every single post, now my brain hurts

But if you don't like what you see make your own game with all the freedom you can desire

Modifié par Akiios, 18 janvier 2011 - 12:37 .

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

I am saying that you did not have that feature before, it was eliminated by the fact that you had the other options and the character's preference was purely dependant on what you wanted it to be, not what that character would prefer.  This helps distinguish the characters as individuals in the minds of many players, the character will not simply do whatever you ask.  This was not there before.

As I made clear before, I do not consider the party characters an extension of the player.  The player has their character that they define and roleplay.  By roleplaying this character they interact with the companions.  This is my playstyle, and those with similar ones are more likely to see this as a benefit than anyone with your playstyle.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 18 janvier 2011 - 12:42 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

moilami wrote...

Haha, it is a real problem. Why still do it? Because I would hate also to not do it. See? Two choises and I hate both. It can happen. Guess then will I chose to make Morri learn something more useful than shapeshifting?

Now with these new rules I don't have that kind of sucky choise anymore.

No, now you're stuck with one alternative that you didn't like even when you got to choose it.

How is this better?

Il Divo wrote...

This might not be the best example. Elder Scrolls does make use of subtitles, but it also uses actual dialogue lines to distinguish when your character is making a specific statement.

Does it?  I don't recall that at all.  The most recent mental image I can summon up is from Morrowind, with a list of applicable keywords in a UI box.

For general conversation, you have categories like 'rumors', 'Place', 'Mages Guild' where you are supposed to infer that your character is asking a question.

Right, those options are abstractions.  So what's different about DAO's dialogue options?

Upsettingshorts wrote...

He doesn't choose so much as his character does. 

Edit: Maybe not.

My character is not a god (unless I've decided he is, I suppose).  He can't decide what is true in the world.

I believe he was referring to passive, genre-savvy metagaming.

In the sense that the player would treat the example of the City elf's father as exposition.

Ahh, well then, that's not roleplaying, so I hadn't considered it.

I find it easier to have these conversations if I just assume that everyone is actually trying to roleplay in the roleplaying game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 janvier 2011 - 12:38 .

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

...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?

Yes, that's exactly right.

And you can too.  If you want to roleplay a character who travelled in from a faraway land of your own imagining, the game doesn't stop you.

If find these to be very useful roleplaying exercises.

  If I wanted to disregard all the things the characters say to create my personal version of events, I'd just write a book.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
My character is not a god (unless I've decided he is, I suppose).  He can't decide what is true in the world..

I meant insofar as your character interprets what he or she sees and that is their definition of "truth."  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lord Aesir wrote...

I am saying that you did not have that feature before, it was eliminated by the fact that you had the other options and the character's preference was purely dependant on what you wanted it to be, not what that character would prefer.

Unless you, the player, elected to abide by the character's initial setup.  There's nothing this new system lets you do that the old one didn't.

This helps distinguish the characters as individuals in the minds of many players, the character will not simply do whatever you ask.  This was not there before.

That the character can refuse is what matters?  But that would rely on the players, en masse, not understanding the player/character distinction.  Is that true?  Do people really not get that?

As I made clear before, I do not consider the party characters merely an extension of the player.

I don't consider any of the characters an extension of the player.  All of the characters, including the PC, are independent entities that exist in their world. 

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I believe he was referring to passive, genre-savvy metagaming.
In the sense that the player would treat the example of the City elf's father as exposition.

Ahh, well then, that's not roleplaying, so I hadn't considered it.
I find it easier to have these conversations if I just assume that everyone is actually trying to roleplay in the roleplaying game.

And I'd guess this is the main source as to why people can't seem to follow most of Sylvius thought processes. I'd guess most people assume the debate comes from a "playing the videogame"  perspective, rather than from a "roleplay in the roleplaying game" perspective.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lord Aesir wrote...

If I wanted to disregard all the things the characters say to create my personal version of events, I'd just write a book.

You could, but in an RPG the setting is already built for you.

[Uzzy]

I do rather agree with Sylvius here. I'm seeing no valid reason why I should be prevented entirely from letting characters use bows, or swords or armour. If you want to portray certain characters as having mastered various fighting styles, give them bonuses to those fighting styles, so Isabela might have a large bonus to daggers. You don't need to block off other options, so give us options, not restrictions!



I rather enjoyed having Morrigan get some heavy armour and start using a sword, so it'd have been nice to see such decisions be possible in DA2.

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Wouldn't that just make the story feel contrived?  Hmm, I need a shapeshifter here, and oh look, I just happen to have one!

Haha, guessed that would come. For me all CRPGs are a quest to go through the tube the devs has made. So needing Morri's special skills as an additional story and quest element doesn't really change anything. It is the limitation of the media. Everything must be scripted.

BioWare has been very innovative company and now that I understand their reasoning with these new changes I can only keep thumbs up they can make it work. Before this thread I can say I was very negative.

[Felfenix]

OP should just make his own games, since he's upset over anything where he doesn't have 100% creative control over any and every aspect. You're never gonna have that unless you make your own crappy games or creepy fanfiction.

[Kane-Corr]

....If you fight alongside Superman in battle...what will he use?



Answer: His fists.



...If you fight alongside Batman in battle...what will he use?



Answer: Ninja stuff...acrobatics, etc.



...If you fight alongside Luke Skywalker in battle...what will he use?



Answer: Lightsaber amd the Force.



Solution: People have set ways of fighting, even in the real world. Not every person can wield a certain weapon...therefore, instead of completely screwing you over, Bioware has just said..."OK, person X cannot use an axe," Etc, etc.



Why in the world would you choose weapons for someone in an RPG that's striving to be as accurate (realistic) as possible. You (and your character) are not God. The purpose of this next game...is to play as HAWKE...not Isabella, not Merrill....ok?



OP, you really need to wrap your mind around this....the thread has evolved into a grotesque beast with mangled hands. Obviously, this will not be changed...



I understand the whole stating your opinion and everything...that's totally fine...



but you just have to know when to bow out gracefully...retreat for another time...like when DA2 actually comes out...then we can assess it.

[Xewaka]

Felfenix wrote...
OP should just make his own games, since he's upset over anything where he doesn't have 100% creative control over any and every aspect. You're never gonna have that unless you make your own crappy games or creepy fanfiction.

Actually, if you bothered to read his points, you'd have noticed that he doesn't ask for anything that hasn't been already done in previous Bioware games.

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

I am saying that you did not have that feature before, it was eliminated by the fact that you had the other options and the character's preference was purely dependant on what you wanted it to be, not what that character would prefer.

Unless you, the player, elected to abide by the character's initial setup.  There's nothing this new system lets you do that the old one didn't.

This helps distinguish the characters as individuals in the minds of many players, the character will not simply do whatever you ask.  This was not there before.

That the character can refuse is what matters?  But that would rely on the players, en masse, not understanding the player/character distinction.  Is that true?  Do people really not get that?

As I made clear before, I do not consider the party characters merely an extension of the player.

I don't consider any of the characters an extension of the player.  All of the characters, including the PC, are independent entities that exist in their world. 

I know, but you have stated that you play as four characters simultaneously, rather than simply being the PC, that is the distinction.  I don't have any more control over the companion than the PC does. 

The character's ability to refuse makes some players feel more as if the character has more of a will of their own rather than doing whatever the PC says.  They like that.  They like some things being outside their control because when they roleplay, for all intents and purposes, they are the PC and take on the personality they created for the PC in the game, and they don't try to make a distinction between what they do as players in the game and what the PC does, that's a choice not a lack of understanding.  Having all the companions do whatever they say takes away from that in their eyes.

[Felfenix]

Xewaka wrote...

Felfenix wrote...
OP should just make his own games, since he's upset over anything where he doesn't have 100% creative control over any and every aspect. You're never gonna have that unless you make your own crappy games or creepy fanfiction.

Actually, if you bothered to read his points, you'd have noticed that he doesn't ask for anything that hasn't been already done in previous Bioware games.

Fortunately there are games out there just for him: Previous Bioware games. If you don't want something new, then stick with the old.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Does it?  I don't recall that at all.  The most recent mental image I can summon up is from Morrowind, with a list of applicable keywords in a UI box.

On the whole, it did rely on the UI box, but particularly during main quest assignments there were also moments where the game provided your character with specific responses.

Right, those options are abstractions. So what's different about dAO's dialogue options?

But those options are clearly intended to be abstractions. When I click 'rumors' and an npc tells me about a murder that occurred recently, what the player character is really saying is something like "Have you heard any rumors lately?" Dragon Age offers no abstractions. The dialogue options (and character responses) were clearly designed to create an ongoing 'flow'.

If I have my PC ask someone "Hello, how are you?" and they respond "Fine, thank you" with a silent protagonist. What is there to envision beyond the npc's response?  

[SnakeStrike8]

Gisle Aune wrote...

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

Huh.
I'd never have thought a troll thread like this would get six pages of stuff in it.

What's so trollish about this  - it's just proving that Gaider can be a bit hypocritical on occation.

And what is the point of that? Shall we launch a worldwide boycott of Dragon Age 2 because Gaider can be a bit hypocritical on occasion? Burn him at the stake for his sin? Storm Bioware's office?
Troll threads are troll threads. Some are just a bit harder to identify as such, as evidenced by this one.

[Firky]

This is in reference to the original post only, and recent posts about "choice", I haven't read the whole thing.



Yikes, man. Respectfully, isn't picking apart this quote too ... picky? Without knowing the context, I'm guessing it just meant - "Here's your game of Scrabble. If you choose to put only swearwords on the board, go for it. The game allows it. If you choose to do a dance on the table, great, but you don't get any points."



Choice, or lack of, in the instance of the fixed protagonist, for example, only feels restrictive to me in comparison to Origins. I never once worried about it in The Witcher. It just was what it was. Much as I'd love a totally true, classic, RPG experience, each game brings its own rules to work within. (Incidentally, I recently learned that they nearly went with a totally customizable character for the Witcher, only making it Geralt at the last minute.)

[moilami]

Lord Aesir wrote...


As I made clear before, I do not consider the party characters an extension of the player.  The player has their character that they define and roleplay.  By roleplaying this character they interact with the companions.  This is my playstyle, and those with similar ones are more likely to see this as a benefit than anyone with your playstyle.

But there was this one smart clarification by Mad which basicly said that in CRPG you are both Dungeon Master and Player. You are DM when you chose what your companions wear and how they develop, and you are Player when you play your char.

Now this new BioWare way makes you less a Dungeon Master. It trades your DM powers to help you get more immersed. I pretty much believe it is the right choise for one playthrough, if done well. But for more than one playthrough it begins to be not so good because you can't do so much experimental stuff.

[wolfsite]

I don't mean to be rude here (well maybe I do but what the hey)

Arguing on the Internet is like smashing your head into a brick wall repeatedly.  Nothing constructive gets acomplished, you end up getting a headache, and you come out sounding a lot dumber then you did going in.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

On the whole, it did rely on the UI box, but particularly during main quest assignments there were also moments where the game provided your character with specific responses.

That would explain it.  I certainly never saw the main quest in Oblivion (worst plot hook ever), and I don't even know what the main quest in Morrowind was.

I didn't play Daggerfall, and it's been a long time since I played Arena.

But those options are clearly intended to be abstractions.

Why does it matter what they are intended to be?  What matters is what they can be.  And they can be abstractions, even in DAO.

You're free to treat them like full text dialogue, but that's your choice.

If I have my PC ask someone "Hello, how are you?" and they respond "Fine, thank you" with a silent protagonist. What is there to envision beyond the npc's response?

Whatever you like.  That's the beauty of it.