1044 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Holy crap did that lousy shot thing ever ****** me the heck off. Why in the heck are you going to make me point and shoot the weapon myself if you're not going to use my aim? If it's based on Shepard's aim then why make aim the gun myself? The two things don't make any sense together.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

That's ridiculous. It's the equivalent of suggesting in a novel or film that every character the protagonist encounters is also main character. 

From that character's point of view, of course he is.

And second, a novel or film doesn't ask for my input.  It's a static piece of narrative.

That's the problem with your statement. The game does not just arbitrarily decide on a random perspective to tell the story from. The developers did not let you play out your origin on a mere whim, but because that specifically is yours.

How is that not arbitrary?

Which is why the more control Bioware takes from you, the more sensible it becomes.

Or, alternately, the more control they give me the more sense it makes.

They're trapped in the middle, and they need to move to one end of the continuum or the other.  Your mistake is in thinking that only one end of the scale is viable.

[Blastback]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But why would she ever pick up a bow when she can achieve her task easier with a pair of knives? Obviousy she isn't very good at shooting a bow, so why are you giving one to her in the first place? If you want an archer you bring the archer party member.

What BioWare is doing is reducing customization, yes. But it is defining the characters far better.

But what evidence is there that she isn't any good with a bow besides mechanics?  Like in ME2, half the party can't use assault rifles in game, but then in the cutscenes, you learn they very much can. 

For my money, this takes away the whole point of leveling up you companions.  You've allready determined what their function is, the only thing I can do is decide which order they get skills in.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Isabela's a Rogue.  Rogues can learn bows.  But not Isabela.  Why?  What prevents her from learning to use a bow?  If it's just personal preference, then why do I (the player) get to assign her talent points at all?  Shouldn't she learn a fixed progression every time, given that her personality drives that development?

Because the presentation of the characters are not mechanical. The mechanical rules are not always the laws of physics that dictate the reality, they are simply a tool or the god of the world to express what it desires to be expressed. Isabela is predefined to be a master duelist with no significant training in firing a bow, and as that is how the character is intended to be experienced througout the game, you are not allowed to decide to change that.

I'll say it one more time to grow on: it's not your game. Not in the way you think of "it's my game." The game is BioWare's and you will experience what BioWare intends for you to experience if you play this game. They aren't giving you the option to do otherwise.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 18 janvier 2011 - 08:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Holy crap did that lousy shot thing ever ****** me the heck off. Why in the heck are you going to make me point and shoot the weapon myself if you're not going to use my aim? If it's based on Shepard's aim then why make aim the gun myself? The two things don't make any sense together.

It was just target selection.  You'd hover the over-sized reticle over the target, and Shepard might hit it.

I saw no problem with that at all.  There was no real difference between how Shepard hit things and how Alistair hit things.  In both cases the hit or miss was stat-driven.

[bsbcaer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Ok, so how about this as a compromise.  You would have no problem with it if they had designed it so that there was an option to spend a single point in archery, but have absolutely no other talents in archery other than point and shoot (no upgrades beyond the initial ability to use the bow)?

If she can't learn the bow like other characters can learn the bow, there needs to be some mechanical reason why.  I know why Warriors can't learn the bow, because in DA2 warriors can't learn bows.  It's arbitrary, but it's consistently applied.

Isabela's a Rogue.  Rogues can learn bows.  But not Isabela.  Why?  What prevents her from learning to use a bow?  If it's just personal preference, then why do I (the player) get to assign her talent points at all?  Shouldn't she learn a fixed progression every time, given that her personality drives that development?

Alright, Im not sure if you have every tried archery.  I have, it takes a lot of time and practice to get anywhere NEAR profecient enough to shoot accurately and powerful enough to hurt anyone (other than your own damn arm) on a regular basis.  That's why my compromise would only allow Isabela (in this hypothetical scenario, because it's not really going to happen) one slot to be able to use a bow but none of the special abilities. 

As a mechanical reason, it's already been explained several times in this thread by several people.  Isabela (as a character defined by the DA team) has decided to spend her time and energy perfecting the use of dual blades at the expense of any other fighting style (ie. archery).  So, the mechanical reason is that the development team took this aspect of her character and said made the decision to remove the archery web from her possible talents and replace it with a different web based off of dual wielding that Isabela, and only Isabela, can use. 

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Holy crap did that lousy shot thing ever ****** me the heck off. Why in the heck are you going to make me point and shoot the weapon myself if you're not going to use my aim? If it's based on Shepard's aim then why make aim the gun myself? The two things don't make any sense together.

It was just target selection.  You'd hover the over-sized reticle over the target, and Shepard might hit it.

I saw no problem with that at all.  There was no real difference between how Shepard hit things and how Alistair hit things.  In both cases the hit or miss was stat-driven.

Well, you don't like FPSs. I do. I felt like I was playing one and I expected it to behave like one, mechanically. The discrepency was jarring, and especially in ME2 (for those who don't like playing FPSs at all) you can't even pause to aim, so it absolutely is not target selection since it specificallyr equires you to be reflexive.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Because the presentation of the characters and not mechanical. The mechanical rules are not always the laws of physics that dictate the reality,

If that's true, then we have no idea how the reality works and we can't make any decisions.

they are simply a tool or the god of the world to express what it desires to be expressed. Isabela is predefined to be a master duelist with no significant training in firing a bow,

I'm not complaining about that.  I'm complaining about her inability to learn to fire a bow.

and as that is how the character is intended to be experienced througout the game,

Again, that's not relevant to whether that intended experience me mandatory.

I'll say it one more time to grow on: it's not your game.

I can see that.  I'm asking why not.  There's no cost to allowing the player greater control over the companions.  None at all.  You haven't shown any.

The game is BioWare's and you will experience what BioWare intends for you to experience if you play this game.

I doubt I will, actually.  I routinely interpret in-game action differently from how they intended.  Their attempt is a fool's errand.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Well, you don't like FPSs. I do. I felt like I was playing one and I expected it to behave like one, mechanically. The discrepency was jarring

That's a problem not with the game, but with your expectations.  You'd accepted similar mechanics in the past, so there was no reason for you to reject them in ME.

and especially in ME2 (for those who don't like playing FPSs at all) you can't even pause to aim, so it absolutely is not target selection since it specificallyr equires you to be reflexive.

You can't aim while paused in ME2?  How did I not notice that?  I relied on paused aiming in ME.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If that's true, then we have no idea how the reality works and we can't make any decisions.

You can't. Most of us will be able to gleam the discrepencies and make decisions just fine.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm not complaining about that.  I'm complaining about her inability to learn to fire a bow.

You're not allowed to, because Isabela is intended to be a duelist and you're not allowed to reinterpret the character that way. No matter what she will only use daggers. (presumably. I'm not entirely certain that this has been varified)

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Again, that's not relevant to whether that intended experience me mandatory.

It's completely relevant because that is the only reason why it's madatory. They want you to experience the game that specific way.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I can see that.  I'm asking why not.  There's no cost to allowing the player greater control over the companions.  None at all.  You haven't shown any.

I actually think you're just being stuborn on this point. There is no cost where your type of gameplay is concerned. For many many players the benefit will be very concrete and verifiable. The emotional response to the game. The reactions and perceptions resultant of the mechanical limitations of the game. They funnel you into a specific experience. Perhaps what isn't being grasped here is the notion that for some players there is a specific need to be directed toward an experience. Players that can play in a sandbox and find it utterly boring and devoid of charm or excitiment. Players that need, or specifically want to see a directed and/or micromanaged story that is fed to them. There is no benefit for you, but there is plenty of benefit for a lot of other players out there.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I doubt I will, actually.  I routinely interpret in-game action differently from how they intended.  Their attempt is a fool's errand.

Well that's entirely up to you.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

From that character's point of view, of course he is.

And second, a novel or film doesn't ask for my input.  It's a static piece of narrative.

So what's the point then? Of course every character sees himself as the 'main character' of his or her story. I am the main character of my life, you are the main character of yours. But from the perspective of a narrative, even one which involves input from the player, what you suggest still doesn't work. The story must selectively take certain perspectives in order to create a coherent, focused tale and the tale always chooses the main Protagonist, barring extremities (sending a mage into the Fade for example).

Or, alternately, the more control they give me the more sense it makes.

They're trapped in the middle, and they need to move to one end of the continuum or the other.  Your mistake is in thinking that only one end of the scale is viable.

And how precisely does moving in the opposite direction help us? What precise advantage do you see going down your end? Baldur's Gate, even with the ability to let other characters speak as the party's voice, still did not allow you to be every character equally. When your PC dies, the game ends. When an ally betrays you, the choice is not given to you which character to control. That's the problem with your end of the spectrum where player = every character. In DnD fashion, I control my pc while another player controls their pc.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 janvier 2011 - 08:56 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's a problem not with the game, but with your expectations.

How is that different than your expectations that cRPGs reproduce the tabletop experience minus other people? 

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Well, you don't like FPSs. I do. I felt like I was playing one and I expected it to behave like one, mechanically. The discrepency was jarring

That's a problem not with the game, but with your expectations.  You'd accepted similar mechanics in the past, so there was no reason for you to reject them in ME.

and especially in ME2 (for those who don't like playing FPSs at all) you can't even pause to aim, so it absolutely is not target selection since it specificallyr equires you to be reflexive.

You can't aim while paused in ME2?  How did I not notice that?  I relied on paused aiming in ME.

I know that when I played ME2 the reticule could not be moved over an enemy while paused. Maybe I was doing something wrong? 
That was a problem with my expectations, but it's the responsibility of the developer to try and predict responses to the mechanics. My complaint is a common one, which heavily influenced how they managed the mechanics of ME2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I actually think you're just being stuborn on this point. There is no cost where your type of gameplay is concerned. For many many players the benefit will be very concrete and verifiable. The emotional response to the game. The reactions and perceptions resultant of the mechanical limitations of the game. They funnel you into a specific experience. Perhaps what isn't being grasped here is the notion that for some players there is a specific need to be directed toward an experience.

Players can be directed without being forced.  That's my point.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I actually think you're just being stuborn on this point. There is no cost where your type of gameplay is concerned. For many many players the benefit will be very concrete and verifiable. The emotional response to the game. The reactions and perceptions resultant of the mechanical limitations of the game. They funnel you into a specific experience. Perhaps what isn't being grasped here is the notion that for some players there is a specific need to be directed toward an experience.

Players can be directed without being forced.  That's my point.

Then my point is that many of them the can't or won't.

edit: alternatively, the devs don't want you to experience the game in an alternate way. It is their creation. They have created "this" and have not created "something else." Presumably because they think that "this" will be really fun and interesting. And "this" does include some aspects of freedom and choice and role playing, but distinctly lacks on a lot of the details that you seem to find so valuable. By forcing you to experience "this" and not "something else" they are forcing you to experience what they had intended to create, which is what they wanted to begin with.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 18 janvier 2011 - 09:07 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's a problem not with the game, but with your expectations.

How is that different than your expectations that cRPGs reproduce the tabletop experience minus other people? 

That's not my expectation.  That's my preference. And my preference has been served by CRPGs previously.

Il Divo wrote...

So what's the point then? Of course every character sees himself as the 'main character' of his or her story. I am the main character of my life, you are the main character of yours. But from the perspective of a narrative, even one which involves input from the player, what you suggest still doesn't work. The story must selectively take certain perspectives in order to create a coherent, focused tale and the tale always chooses the main Protagonist, barring extremities (sending a mage into the Fade for example).

That's only true if the story is fixed and has to be told the same way every time.

But it's not.  You're completely ignoring the role of emergent narrative in interactive media.

And how precisely does moving in the opposite direction help us? What precise advantage do you see going down your end? Baldur's Gate, even with the ability to let other characters speak as the party's voice, still did not allow you to be every character equally. When your PC dies, the game ends.

Clearly BG didn't go far enough.

In DnD fashion, I control my pc while another player controls their pc.

It's a single-player game.  There aren't any other players.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Then my point is that many of the can't or won't.

You're about to make me retreat to an armed compound.

Jeez, I thought my opinion of humanity was low...

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I know that when I played ME2 the reticule could not be moved over an enemy while paused. Maybe I was doing something wrong? 

[
I just asked on the ME forum.  First response says you can aim while paused in ME2.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's a problem not with the game, but with your expectations.

How is that different than your expectations that cRPGs reproduce the tabletop experience minus other people? 

Because obviously Sylvius' word is canon, and anyone not adhering to it should be burned at the stake. Duh.

[TheCreeper]

Here's the thing, Dragon Age may be a single player game but the other characters are still there own characters, I don't know about you but when I play Tabletop RPGs the guy in charge doesn't allow me to control every aspect of the NPCs. You are Roleplaying as Hawke, Hawke can't force isabella to use a weapon she isn't good at. You guys do got to keep in mind that the other characters are not the Puppets of the Player Character.

Modifié par TheCreeper, 18 janvier 2011 - 09:11 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Then my point is that many of the can't or won't.

You're about to make me retreat to an armed compound.

Jeez, I thought my opinion of humanity was low...

Does it honestly surprise you that you can hand someone a sandbox and tell them to do whatever they want in it, and they'll be bored out of their mind? I wouldn't. But converstly..... sometimes I want to be told a story. And I want to play a game while I'm being told this story. I don't want to write it myself. I want a good writer to create it and present it to me without me giving any input on it at all. I don't want this all the time, but in some games it's awesome to have. And there are lots and lots of gamers that have at least a slightly similar view on that. Also, I edited the last post to add moer.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I just asked on the ME forum.  First response says you can aim while paused in ME2.

Then I must have been doing something wrong. I was not able to aim while paused. Not that I would have wanted to. I just wanted the gun to shoot straight.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...
 If it's based on Shepard's aim then why make aim the gun myself?  

Wait a minute. If the player doesn't put the reticle over a particular target, how would the game know who Shepard's supposed to be shooting at?

Edit: as for ME2, is it possible that you just assumed the game wouldn't let you aim while paused because shooters typically don't, and in other respects ME2 combat is shooterish?

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 janvier 2011 - 09:13 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's only true if the story is fixed and has to be told the same way every time.

But it's not.  You're completely ignoring the role of emergent narrative in interactive media.

Except the story is fixed, barring developments along the way. No matter how different you and I attempt to design our characters, Ostagar happens, Lothering gets burned down, an army is recruited and the archdemon is killed. Certain aspects cannot be changed, however much you may want them to.

Clearly BG didn't go far enough.

And clearly, if it had gone further, it would have defied the very purpose of narrative. There are limits to what any developer can do and you are always going to be railroaded to an extent, even within the confines of a tabletop. If we follow your design choice, we are left without a coherent story ever taking place. If I choose to kill my PC as Xzar and Monty, the story ends there. If I choose to kill my PC as Zevran, the story ends there. What you are asking for is something which you have no hope of ever seeing in the confines of a video game.

It's a single-player game.  There aren't any other players.

I believe it is you who is attempting to argue from the perspective of tabletops. In a typical tabletop, you have control of one character "your character" at all times, not 9 characters as Dragon Age allows you.

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
 If it's based on Shepard's aim then why make aim the gun myself?  

Wait a minute. If the player doesn't put the reticle over a particular target, how would the game know who Shepard's supposed to be shooting at?

I would have prefered plain old target selection, like in DA:O or NWN or BG. Click the badguy and let the mechanics handle the rest. Or just let my aim be what matters. Mixing the two together flat out sucked.

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

they are simply a tool or the god of the world to express what it desires to be expressed. Isabela is predefined to be a master duelist with no significant training in firing a bow,

I'm not complaining about that.  I'm complaining about her inability to learn to fire a bow.

That's the problem.  Isabella is not the PC, she is not the player character, she is not your character.  You can't force her to use a bow anymore than you can force her personality to change.