1044 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

Don't worry Syl. They actually do love you. Chris just won't admit it.

[upsettingshorts]

October Sixth wrote...

You're taking Mike's remark out of context.

He said that if you mod the game it becomes yours and you have only yourself to blame for subsequent lore/story inconsistencies. This statement was in regard to making every NPC a mage. He never said that the game is your story all along.

Yup.

/thread

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 janvier 2011 - 07:20 .

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But DA2 seemingly is designed like that. Rather than Isabela having access to the full range of Rogue talents so that we could use her as an archer if we wanted, they've taken away our ability to make her an archer - even a bad archer - just because they think it doesn't suit her.

DA2 follows an entirely different design philosophy.

It isn't that "they think". It is "they know", they are the people who wrote this character. They are the ones who have designed her past, her goals, her personality, her story to be (of course with whatever degree of influence the PC has on it), etc. They know what suits her because they know who she is.

Modifié par Sigil_Beguiler123, 17 janvier 2011 - 07:20 .

[xXSnak3Eat3rXx]

Quit whining.

All you've done is shown 2 different posts completely out of context of the original posts.

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
David Gaider says he's excited that the players can't change Isabela's garment to something less Isabela-like.  Why?  It's our game, right?  Why can't we do what we like?

So because it's your game Isabela is your Isabela, right? Then at the same time you say that working with an archetype doesn't de-personalize a character. Contradiction time.

Make-up your mind on your logic and what you really want and like, because you cannot have both, as I always told you and now it's proven either by yourself with what you say.

Modifié par Amioran, 17 janvier 2011 - 07:30 .

[Xewaka]

October Sixth wrote...

You're taking Mike's remark out of context.

He said that if you mod the game it becomes yours and you have only yourself to blame for subsequent lore/story inconsistencies. This statement was in regard to making every NPC a mage. He never said that the game is your story all along.

Actually, the part you refer to was said by Luke, not Mike.

[upsettingshorts]

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

It isn't that "they think". It is "they know", they are the people who wrote this character. They are the ones who have designed her past, her goals, her personality, her story to be (of course with whatever degree of influence the PC has on it), etc. They know what suits her because they know who she is.

*buzz sound*

Nope.  I expect a reply shortly that explains how we can't know that therefore the writer's intent doesn't or might as well not exist.

DA2 is fundamentally moving away from the kind of game that actively supports or even passively allows the kind of experience Sylvius wants from a cRPG.  That's simply a fact.  However I'm not sure what his purpose is with this particular thread, it strikes me as needlessly provocative.  

[Rogue Unit]

(additional generic "quit whining and taking words out of context" post)

[Maria Caliban]

Ryzaki wrote...

Dhiro wrote...


I don't see how DA II let you experiment a story any less than Origins :< ...Except the no-race and the voice actor part.

You don't see how the framed narrative is more restrictive?

It's hard to see something that doesn't exist.

BioWare games are more restrictive than sandbox games like the Elder Scrolls or Fallout: NV. They're less restrictive than linear action/adventure games like Dead Space or Darksiders.

The framed narrative doesn't restrict anything. Hawke will become the Champion of Kirkwall if you play through to the end. The Warden will stop the Fifth Blight. These are both unavoidable endings; the only control you have is how you go about doing these things.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ryzaki wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Always their story.

Eh. Now that you mention it. They've always been pretty JRPG like.

No, they haven't.  In fact, I would argue that most of their games don't tell you a story they wrote.

Most BioWare games allow the player to help create the story - that being the story of the PC's adventure - by granting the player considerable control over who the PC is, what he does, why he does it, how he feels about what's happening, and what his ultimate objectives are.

For example, in KotOR, why does a PC who chooses the dark side ending follow that path?  Did he want power for himself, or was he simply protecting the galaxy from the Jedi?  Or was he fooling himself into thinking he was doing something righteous, when in fact he was just selfish?  And who did he think he was before he learned who he really was?  If he romanced Bastila, did he do so because he loved her, or so he could gain her trust in order to manipulate her?

In DAO, when asked by that merchant in Lothering to drive off the angry mob, what principles drove the Warden's decision.  Was he motivated by charity?  Or greed?  Or was he trying to ingratiate himself with the locals.  Was he defending a deeply held belief in the value of property rights?

Is DA2 going to let us play a coherent character we've designed to this degree of detail?  If not, then it is different in kind from BioWare's previous offerings (except the ME titles, which did not offer this level of player agency).

[Amioran]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

DA2 is fundamentally moving away from the kind of game that actively supports or even passively allows the kind of experience Sylvius wants from a cRPG.  

Problem is that sometimes Sylvius is a bit confused in what he really wants, since he is interested, for example, in personalizations of characters and yet he prefers archetypes. This is obviously a contradiction of terms.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

You're taking Mike's remark out of context.

He said that if you mod the game it becomes yours and you have only yourself to blame for subsequent lore/story inconsistencies. This statement was in regard to making every NPC a mage. He never said that the game is your story all along.

Yup.

/thread

No.  The line from Mike I quoted was in regard to whether you could design a head so strange that the matching feature system that governs Hawke's family would no longer resemble him.

This had nothing to do with modding.

Luke's remark about modding (which has nothing to do with this issue) was wonderful.

[upsettingshorts]

The framed narrative to me will serve one purpose: To make the game more reactive to your decisions.

How? Because that's what it did in Alpha Protocol and The Witcher.

What does that mean? Well, just as a hypothetical using DAO, in such a system you might be able to revisit Orzammar and see how its new King is getting along. Maybe even get different quests based on different decisions you made in the previous act. In Origins what did we get? A different epilogue card. That's what I think Bioware means when they say DA2 will be more reactive.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 janvier 2011 - 07:29 .

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

You're taking Mike's remark out of context.

He said that if you mod the game it becomes yours and you have only yourself to blame for subsequent lore/story inconsistencies. This statement was in regard to making every NPC a mage. He never said that the game is your story all along.

Yup.

/thread

No.  The line from Mike I quoted was in regard to whether you could design a head so strange that the matching feature system that governs Hawke's family would no longer resemble him.

This had nothing to do with modding.

Luke's remark about modding (which has nothing to do with this issue) was wonderful.

Then Mike was talking about it being your game, your  freedom to choose from the choices that they give you.

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The framed narrative to me will serve one purpose: To make the game more reactive to your decisions.

How? Because that's what it did in Alpha Protocol and The Witcher.

What does that mean? Well, just as a hypothetical using DAO, in such a system you might be able to revisit Orzammar and see how its new King is getting along. Maybe even get different quests based on different decisions you made in the previous act. In Origins what did we get? A different epilogue card. That's what I think Bioware means when they say DA2 will be more reactive.

Hell even if we as Hawke can't revisit an area it could certainly appear in the framed narrative parts. Imagine you make a absolutely cold hearted decision as Champion. Goes to Varric and Cassandra, she opens a window and you see a riot outside screaming for your blood, "look what his/her choice led to!", says Cassandra.

[Guitar-Hero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

hey...go ahead! It's your game, after all.

The above quote is taken from the family resemblance thread.

Now, I love that Mike's saying that it's our game, and we can do with it what we will.  But much of DA2's design seems directly in conflict with this sentiment.

David Gaider says he's excited that the players can't change Isabela's garment to something less Isabela-like.  Why?  It's our game, right?  Why can't we do what we like?

One of the supposed benefits of the paraphrase system is that it prevents people from skipping dialogue.  As David said:

David Gaider wrote...

we want people to hear the lines and the VO.

But why do you care?  Again, isn't it "our game", after all?

DA2's design appears to be aimed at causing the players to experience the game as the designers would like it to be experienced, as yet whenever we learn of a feature that allows us greater freedom than that it is explained as Mike did above.  "Go ahead! It's your game, after all. 

These positions appear to be in conflict.

He he, that sounded kinda passive-aggressive
I think what he means that, you are the main contributing factor in the game, what i mean by this is that you are the one who makes most of the decisions that will influence and shape the world around you
and you control how people see you, but i take it you know this, otherwise you would not have made this thread 
to make it painfully obvious that you dont agree.

Or it could just be the conspiracy thing  

[Saibh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No.  The line from Mike I quoted was in regard to whether you could design a head so strange that the matching feature system that governs Hawke's family would no longer resemble him.

This had nothing to do with modding.

Luke's remark about modding (which has nothing to do with this issue) was wonderful.

Sylvius, you were reading way too much into it. He was saying "Sure, you have freedom to make your face as extreme as the design peremeters allow".

Not "we are making a digital tabletop game where there are theoretically no limitations".

You never have complete control over the game, and it is never "your" game. It's the game that they have crafted for you. In a choose-your-own-adventure, I pick which path I want to go on. But there are no more paths than what the author has created.

This will always and forever be true about RPG video games.

[Ryzaki]

Maria Caliban wrote...
It's hard to see something that doesn't exist.

BioWare games are more restrictive than sandbox games like the Elder Scrolls or Fallout: NV. They're less restrictive than linear action/adventure games like Dead Space or Darksiders.

The framed narrative doesn't restrict anything. Hawke will become the Champion of Kirkwall if you play through to the end. The Warden will stop the Fifth Blight. These are both unavoidable endings; the only control you have is how you go about doing these things.

Gah. It's hard to explain but the fact to me that Cassandra assumes Varric knows enough about The Champion seems to infer to me on some level that the two of them know each other well. Add that to the book of suspects and I feel like the story expects that Hawke is close to many of the people in the book.

That said it might just be my personal finicky nature.

Though BW games are pretty high on the restricitive foundation.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 17 janvier 2011 - 07:36 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
hey...go ahead! It's your game, after all.

The above quote is taken from the family resemblance thread.

Now, I love that Mike's saying that it's our game, and we can do with it what we will.  But much of DA2's design seems directly in conflict with this sentiment.

David Gaider says he's excited that the players can't change Isabela's garment to something less Isabela-like.  Why?  It's our game, right?  Why can't we do what we like?

One of the supposed benefits of the paraphrase system is that it prevents people from skipping dialogue.  As David said:

David Gaider wrote...
we want people to hear the lines and the VO.

But why do you care?  Again, isn't it "our game", after all?

DA2's design appears to be aimed at causing the players to experience the game as the designers would like it to be experienced, as yet whenever we learn of a feature that allows us greater freedom than that it is explained as Mike did above.  "Go ahead! It's your game, after all. 

These positions appear to be in conflict.

The obvious conclusion is that Mike Laidlaw's imperssion of "it's your game" is very different from your impression of "it's your game." More specifically, when Mike Laidlaw talks about "it's your game" what it means to you is actually "it's not my game." A concept you should have already been very familiar with given the track record fo this relatively short public development run. Something that you should least be willing to keep in mind from this point forward. And strictly speaking, from everything I've read about your style and preferences in gameplay you're going to have accept a radically different style of play if you expect to really enjoy this game the way you normally enjoy RPGs.

[Dave of Canada]

You're given a box, play in it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

DA2 is fundamentally moving away from the kind of game that actively supports or even passively allows the kind of experience Sylvius wants from a cRPG.

Baldur's Gate was the last BioWare titles that actively supported the experience I want.  Even BG2, at best, only passively allowed it (and in some respects was designed to prevent the experience I want - those design features have mostly persisted throughout BioWare's library).

I am still here, however, because BioWare's games (again, excepting the ME titles) have supported my playstyle better than any other games.

However I'm not sure what his purpose is with this particular thread, it strikes me as needlessly provocative.

If the public loses sight of these restrictions, they will cease to view them as optional.  If something is always done one way, it simply won't occur to people that it could be done any other way.

I think it's important that I point out not only that these features need not be designed as they are, but that they haven't always even by this same company.

Not to mention that when discussing new features people have a tendency to focus on the aspects of the new feature they like, rather than the aspects of the feature is supercedes that they have now lost.  It's not unlike a general failure among people to understand opportunity costs (a failure that annoys me every single day).

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

It's your game to experience what we have created.

That explanation would make Mike's initial remark a meaningless platitude.

Surely you're not accusing him of that.

The two things are not in contradiction. I'm amused that you cannot understand this. If it was as you said a book would have no meaning at all, and yet you need you to experience a book.

Working with fixed variables doesn't mean that those variables aren't yours, because they will always be, or they will not entertain you, nor they will have meaning for you. It is ineherent in every medium that's always filtered by yourself and made yours, no matter how "fixed".

Modifié par Amioran, 17 janvier 2011 - 07:38 .

[October Sixth]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

You're taking Mike's remark out of context.

He said that if you mod the game it becomes yours and you have only yourself to blame for subsequent lore/story inconsistencies. This statement was in regard to making every NPC a mage. He never said that the game is your story all along.

Yup.

/thread

No.  The line from Mike I quoted was in regard to whether you could design a head so strange that the matching feature system that governs Hawke's family would no longer resemble him.

This had nothing to do with modding.

Luke's remark about modding (which has nothing to do with this issue) was wonderful.

Oh, okay. Well again context matters. In that case he's saying that it's your version of their game.

You can do what you want given the tools they provide you.

He's still not saying it's your game, restrained only by the limits of your imagination.

[maselphie]

No, I think this is an excellent question. Those quotes aside, lots of people on this board wash over people's criticisms with the "it's their game" argument. True, they made it. They're also a business that survives on making a product appealing to customers. You can't please everyone, and that's a fact. But receiving feedback should be part of their policy if they indeed want to make a game that human beings want to play. If the feedback is "I don't like how we can't change companion outfits" the response shouldn't be "maybe you should go make your own game." Ideally the response should be nothing. Just take in the critique and see how many people feel the same after release. Weigh whether you want to do it again.



Because as much I think the Bioware team is making what they want, I also think they're not. It's still a job for them, and a lot of decisions are out of their control thanks to the publisher-developer relationship. Perhaps criticisms come off as just one more group of people trying to take a piece of their pie, but that's not the case. We're the reason the pie is being made in the first place.

[Merci357]

Mike's quote said "if you want Hawke (and consequently her family) to be ugly as a sin, by all means, go for it". I'm not sure how using it out of context supports your agenda.