1044 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

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.

[Heimdall]

maselphie wrote...

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.

You have a point but you can't blame them for not taking critisism from someone who hasn't even played the game yet seriously.

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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. 

Actually it happens more the contrary because human beings are naturally opposed to change, in every field. Games are not an exception. As in every field, however, change many times also means going in circles, so what may seems obsolete now will sometime not too far away be the "new" change, and so on.

Ouroboros in hermeticism explains just this simbology. 

[Saibh]

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.

[upsettingshorts]

He gave you an example of a Bioware game that actively supported his definition: Baldur's Gate 1.

[Amioran]

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.

Can be true, but it rest to be seen if the way he sees "imy game" is a valid and logic concept in toto, analyzing it fully, either philosophycally. Sometimes it seems to me it isn't so much the case.

[the_one_54321]

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 - 07:48 .

[Captain Iglo]

Its my game.

Pay me!

[Amioran]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

He gave you an example of a Bioware game that actively supported his definition: Baldur's Gate 1.

Also BG1 had impositions, both on story and characters. Also an archetype is a limitation. You cannot really define a class, for example, it is imposed in the end, etc.

In reality you cannot construct anything at all without limitations, surely not in a medium of any sort, since it's ineherent in the medium itself a limitation to abide to. Neither in real life (that being not a medium has less limitations on this point) it's possible in truth. The only thing that comes near to this "freedom" is a dream (if you learn to lucid dream), but also in this case there are some "laws" to abide to.

Modifié par Amioran, 17 janvier 2011 - 07:54 .

[maselphie]

Lord Aesir wrote...


You have a point but you can't blame them for not taking critisism from someone who hasn't even played the game yet seriously.

No one has. So the handful of people who wrote it or debugged it are the only ones allowed to react to or speak about this game? Why is this forum open?

Which is why I said the response should be nothing. But the devs continually post customer-degrading things trying to defend a work we haven't even played yet.

[the_one_54321]

You need to consider that ability to imagine whatever the heck you want about a game when it isn't actively and concretely contradict you. Again, Sylvius does not interpret games the way most gamers do. You may as well be speaking ancient Greek talking about games like most gamers do.

[Heimdall]

maselphie wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...


You have a point but you can't blame them for not taking critisism from someone who hasn't even played the game yet seriously.

No one has. So the handful of people who wrote it or debugged it are the only ones allowed to react to or speak about this game? Why is this forum open?

Which is why I said the response should be nothing. But the devs continually post customer-degrading things trying to defend a work we haven't even played yet.

For the most part they just say you should wait and see.  The rest tend to be responding to veiws like Sylvius', who want things to be a very specific way that the devs have made abundantly clear isn't the way they're doing things.

[moilami]

It is their game which they sell to you. After that it is your game in a similar way as unmentionables are your after you buy it.


Edit: So both of those statements in the OPs posting are true. They want to give you certain game, and after that you can play it as you want. The same goes with unmentionables. The manufacturer wants to sell them, and after you buy it it is up to you how you use them - you would be free to wear them even in your head, if you wanted. No contradictions.

Modifié par moilami, 17 janvier 2011 - 07:59 .

[bsbcaer]

Sylvius wants a game that is as close to a table top experience as it can get. His ideal game (BG1) allows him to control everything amongst his characters and roleplay to his content -- essentially he wants a tabletop experience where he controls everything character wise and just plays in game's sandbox (I know that's a bad word, but it's the one I think best works right now) with vaguely designed starting point and ending point and he can decide how and when to get there. The problem is, Bioware doesn't do that type of game anymore. They've changed it to an experience (again using the tabletop analogy) where it's more like playing with a number of friends who each have a character rather than Sylvius playing by himself and controlling everything characterwise.



It seems to me that Sylvius is more concerned about the why (motivations) of characters than anything else and anything that pushes away from that and roleplaying is a bad thing.

[Amioran]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You need to consider that ability to imagine whatever the heck you want about a game when it isn't actively and concretely contradict you. .

That's "roleplaying", a thing that every one does, with every medium, also not comprehending it. So he is not alone, on the contrary. However this has nothing to do with a view on how a medium is constructed. They are two different things.

As I said, either in roleplay (being a form of dreaming) there are some "laws" to abide to in the end, so either where he thinks he has max freedom in reality he abides to "impositions" if he did knew a bit more about how things works "behind the line".

Modifié par Amioran, 17 janvier 2011 - 08:00 .

[October Sixth]

I think it's important that Sylvius accept that Mike has a different concept of "it's your game" than he does.
His accusation of "meaningless platitudes" suggests that he doesn't.

It's fine to want open, sand-box style RPGs, but those concerns should be raised without personal attacks.

Modifié par October Sixth, 17 janvier 2011 - 08:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

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.

That's nonsense.  I'm interested in personalisation of characters, but I want to be the one doing the personalising.

[maselphie]

Lord Aesir wrote...


For the most part they just say you should wait and see. 

I'll disagree with that. Some very wise developers do, but there are some where almost everything out of their mouth is "wow, you morons." That's an exaggeration, of course. And if people like that, then great.

[the_one_54321]

Amioran wrote...
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.

There is no rule that says you can't write your own archetypal character...

[Heimdall]

maselphie wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...


For the most part they just say you should wait and see. 

I'll disagree with that. Some very wise developers do, but there are some where almost everything out of their mouth is "wow, you morons." That's an exaggeration, of course. And if people like that, then great.

Hm, well I can't say I've seen it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

bsbcaer wrote...

It seems to me that Sylvius is more concerned about the why (motivations) of characters than anything else

Of course.  Because that's the only roleplaying that's available to players of CRPGs.  We can't choose what we want our characters to do, because we can only do those things the designers have designed the game to allow.  We can only go to the places that exist within the game.  This isn't news.

But we could decide why our characters did those things.  From the set of actions available to our characters, we could not only choose which was done, but we had near total freedom to determine why.  That's the roleplaying available in a CRPG.

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's nonsense.  I'm interested in personalisation of characters, but I want to be the one doing the personalising.

And as I said it's a contradiction because you cannot have both. The nonsense is just not really grasping this.

You cannot have full customization, nor full control. Also an archetype is a persona in some part. You have a point of start to choose, you cannot change that archetype in that point, you cannot control it. Neither those games that let you choose a path in "full" make you personalize the path fully in reality, in some part the archetype is personalized, or it will not exist.

It all depends on the amount of personalization of a character. The more it is present, the more the archetype is a character in itself. The more "changeable" the more de-personalized the character will be.

[the_one_54321]

Amioran wrote...
You cannot have full customization, nor full control. Also an archetype is a persona in some part.

This is plain incorrect. You can make up your own character that is also an archetype.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

It all depends on the amount of personalization of a character. The more it is present, the more the archetype is a character in itself. The more "changeable" the more de-personalized the character will be.

This only makes sense if that personalisation needs to be beyond the player's control.

You're basically denying that it's possible for the player to personalise his characters.  And that's blatantly untrue.

[Amioran]

the_one_54321 wrote...
There is no rule that says you can't write your own archetypal character...

And that archetype will always have a characteristic in itself that will make the same a character. On the contrary it will not exist.

It all depends on the degrees. It's not that Bioware is really chaning anything. They are just defining more the archetype, and, naturally, doing this, construct a character, but, at the same time, that character brings in itself an impossibility of customization. On the contrary the character will be, in fact, deconstructed and removed of the personalization given by the definition.