1044 réponses à ce sujet

[NKKKK]

Sylvius, my fav guy. How I love you.



You're more suited for table top RPG's. Then it'll be your "game"

[Amioran]

the_one_54321 wrote...
This is plain incorrect. You can make up your own character that is also an archetype.

Never said the contrary, in fact. An archetype is always a persona at some point (or it will not exist, as I said). A character, however, is more defined as that persona. The degree of definition is what changes the two. If you remove the definition you return to the archetype, that, while being stil a persona, is much more de-personalized than a character.

[the_one_54321]

Amioran wrote...

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.

A lack of originality does not imply a lack of personalization.

[packardbell]

It's mah game!

[Amioran]

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

No, I'm not denying it. I'm just saying that customizing a character de-personalize the same. They lose the definition ineherent in a character.

[the_one_54321]

Amioran wrote...
 An archetype is always a persona at some point (or it will not exist, as I said). A character, however, is more defined as that persona. The degree of definition is what changes the two. If you remove the definition you return to the archetype, that, while being stil a persona, is much more de-personalized than a character.

Then Sylvius can personalize a character that is also archetypal.

A character can be archetypal without being a 100% copy of the base archetype.

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

They are not "Your" characters.  You are the player character, all the rest are part of the story BioWare is telling.
We already have to suspend belief by actually taking control of other characters and making them fight and cast spells exactly the way we wish them to.

[AngelicMachinery]

this thread is silly and semantical.

[moilami]

I want to make my own character in RPG and I want him to have choises and options in game. Else I would play adventure game or watch a movie with superior everything. Of NPCs I don't care because they are supposed to be individuals and make their own choises.



I don't know how DA2 will be. I imagined it would be an RPG when I preordered the signature edition. If it is not, then it will be the first and last game I preordered.

[Amioran]

the_one_54321 wrote...
A lack of originality does not imply a lack of personalization.

Originality has nothing to do with this. An aomeba is a form of life, as an human, however an aomeba is not a character, while an human is. Both share similarities in the end, as a form of life, but the how much the two are defined is what makes them completely different (also if in the end the same thing).

[the_one_54321]

A character can be archetypal without being just an archetype. I think you're misusing the word archetype.

[Merced652]

Chris Priestly wrote...

It's your game to experience what we have created. In the same way that a novel is your adventure to experience.

If you want your game to play as you want, I wish you luck in creating your own game.

Didn't we say all along it was becoming a interactive movie/novel? Seems were we more correct than even we could've predicted.

[HolyJellyfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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

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?

This annoys me, to be frank. I WANT to skip dialogue through a second play through, so I can get all the lines and quotes I didn't retrieve from the first play through.

Skipping lines is WONDERFUL for replayability values. There is nothing more grating than sitting through long dialogue exchanges you are already familiar with.

[Amioran]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Then Sylvius can personalize a character that is also archetypal.

If a character is a character then it's no more an archetype. The definition has removed the character from the archetype status. If you remove the definition then, yes, it returns an archetype, but that, in fact, removes the personalization, the character.

the_one_54321 wrote...
A character can be archetypal without being a 100% copy of the base archetype.

Never said the contrary. You are considering an archetype and a character the same thing, but they are not, in fact.

[Sylvius the Mad]

NKKKK wrote...

Sylvius, my fav guy. How I love you.

You're more suited for table top RPG's. Then it'll be your "game"

Tabletop games require other people.

The primary advantage of CRPGs is that they do not.

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

NKKKK wrote...

Sylvius, my fav guy. How I love you.

You're more suited for table top RPG's. Then it'll be your "game"

Honestly speaking I don't think tabletops would work for him either. Hell even less, since you have even less control over the other player's characters then you do in DA2. You can't tell them what to do in combat (well you can but they need not accept it), or force them to use certain items, etc. Which in DA2 you can.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

No, I'm not denying it. I'm just saying that customizing a character de-personalize the same.

That's completely wrong.

If BioWare designs a character, and then allows me to customise it, then yes, any personalisation they created will be weakened.  This is what you're saying.

But then you're expanding it to say that all personalisation is weakened, which is crazy.  There is no justification at all for what you're saying.

[Amioran]

the_one_54321 wrote...

A character can be archetypal without being just an archetype. I think you're misusing the word archetype.

I'm misusing anything. A character IS an archetype before the definition, always. It is an archetype that cannot be a character in itself, without the definition that renders the same a character.

[Ryzaki]

I hope that "we want you to see all the dialogue!" doesn't stop us from skipping it and certain scenes. Nothing is more annoying to me than a game where I can't skip certain segements that I've already seen.

[the_one_54321]

Amioran wrote...
Never said the contrary. You are considering an archetype and a character the same thing, but they are not, in fact.

Just what are you trying to argue? You're loosing me.

Sylvius can create his own personalized character that is based on an archetype. If he can do that, then there is no argument. No one (so far as I am aware) was talking about a charcter that is an archetype.

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If BioWare designs a character, and then allows me to customise it, then yes, any personalisation they created will be weakened.  This is what you're saying.

Right, this is what I'm talking about.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But then you're expanding it to say that all personalisation is weakened, which is crazy.  There is no justification at all for what you're saying.

Then I expressed myself badly. If there's no definition then there's not de-personalization, naturally. In fact, Bioware have always used archetypes in the past that you could define (at last for what it concerned gameplay, for story they always used characters).

Modifié par Amioran, 17 janvier 2011 - 08:27 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Beerfish wrote...

They are not "Your" characters.  You are the player character, all the rest are part of the story BioWare is telling.
We already have to suspend belief by actually taking control of other characters and making them fight and cast spells exactly the way we wish them to.

In DAO they were our characters.  It was a party-based RPG.  If Wynne learned blood magic, then it was up to you (the player) to determine why.

Otherwise there was simply no reason for the characters to be doing the things they were doing and the game failed utterely to offer an environment that permitted roleplaying.

Frankly, even in DA2, if Isabela learns a specific talent, why did she do that?  Unless BioWare has written in justifications for every possible combination of abilities, then the only person who can decide that is the player.

Oh, and I am not the player character.  I am the player.  The player character is just another person in the game world, no different from any other.  He's just the one I got to design.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If BioWare designs a character, and then allows me to customise it, then yes, any personalisation they created will be weakened.  This is what you're saying.

Right, this is what I'm talking about.

Great, but that has nothing at all to do with personalisation generally.  I can impart personalisation to any and all of the characters, PC or not.

Therefore, allowing me to customise any character within the game only limits that character's personalisation if I choose not to do it.  So that would be my fault, and not a feature of the game at all.

[Jimmy Fury]

Saibh wrote...
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.

Having witnessed several of his lengthier debates, particularly with In_Exile, I wouldn't be so sure he has... I think aspects of games have met his standards but I've honestly never seen him describe an entire game as satisfactory.

edit: Apologies Syl, I feel talking about you in the third person as if you're not here is rude. I greatly respect your brain, logic, and determination.
But is there a game that you would describe as completely satisfactory?

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 17 janvier 2011 - 08:32 .

[Amioran]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Amioran wrote...
Never said the contrary. You are considering an archetype and a character the same thing, but they are not, in fact.

Just what are you trying to argue? You're loosing me.

Sylvius can create his own personalized character that is based on an archetype. If he can do that, then there is no argument. No one (so far as I am aware) was talking about a charcter that is an archetype.

The argument is complicate and I have not enough knowledge of the english language to explain myself as I would like to.

Bioware usually utilized characters for stories and archetypes for gameplay, in the past. Alistair for example is a character when it comes to dialogs, and an archetype when it comes to gameplay. Now they are going the route of the character either for gameplay, for this the less customization on the choices you can have. In fact if you remove the definition that construct the character you will de-personalize it, returning to an archetype status (or in-between, depending on the degree of removed definition).