1044 réponses à ce sujet

[0x30A88]

WarriorHawke to another companion

Hawke: Why wouldn't you wear this armor?
Companion: It's the Maker's (Bioware's) will.
H: That's ridiculus, and this piecei s greatly superior
C: It's the Maker's will - just like the longbow rejecting your hands.

Does this makes sense to you? It does not to me - heck, why let it ruin the game? A modder would probably have his/her try at removing that feature when -if - a toolset comes out - though we'll see massie changes in breast size on women's armor.

Modifié par Gisle Aune, 17 janvier 2011 - 08:34 .

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

I think this right here probably is a major differing point between the views on this subject. For some like myself we are the player character, he/she is our window and influence into this world. The party based gameplay, is well gameplay. It is a separate to our actual exploration and RPing of the world. Just like strength numbers don't actually exist, or dice rolls don't actually exist they are just gameplay mechanics to faciliate having fun in the game.

Modifié par Sigil_Beguiler123, 17 janvier 2011 - 08:34 .

[SnakeStrike8]

Huh.

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

[Ryzaki]

Gisle Aune wrote...

WarriorHawke to another companion

Hawke: Why wouldn't you wear this armor?
Companion: It's the Maker's (Bioware's) will.
H: That's ridiculus, and this piecei s greatly superior
C: It's the Maker's will - just like the longbow rejecting your hands.

I'm laughing behind my rage. There really is no damn excuse my warrior shouldn't be able to equip a bow. No excuse. Arbitary class restrictions my ass.

[Heimdall]

Amioran wrote...

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).

This is the definition of archetype I've learned:

Archetype
–noun 1. the original pattern or model from which all things of the same kind are copied or on which they are based; a model or first form; prototype.

and I'm not sure you're using it...

[0x30A88]

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.

[the_one_54321]

Amioran wrote...
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).

Ok, well a character can "be archetypal" if that character is based on a literary archetype. The hero, the damsel, the white wizard, the christ figure, or any other such archetype. The character gets fleshed out and has it's own personal traits, as you have mentioned. But once the character has been fully personalized you still refer to that character as "archetypal" because the theme and premise of the character was based on one of those literary archetypes.

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

Not if those characters are really characters, because this will remove their personalization. You have said it yourself just a moment ago. If they will allow you to do that then the characterization will be removed and you will have again an archetype, not a real character.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

Again you are talking of an archetype as it is the same as a character, while the two are not the same thing. Customization is perfectly fine for an archetype because there's no the same definition as a real character there. So you create the character yourself, by and by. When a character is already present why do you want to customize what defines the same? If you do so then that characterization will be removed.

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

You made a very good points and clarifications of the concepts here with the exception that there was no total failure when considering the limitations of CRPG.

I just don't understand what this thread is all about.

[0x30A88]

The only bright side about the characters biowarely rejecting other clothing is the realism. In fact, you're a group of people, not a dictator and three slaves. There are good arguments on both side of this argument. It's bioware's game - let them choose to carry out - or not - the potential players' wishes and deal with the consequenses later.

It's only hawke that's your avatar (character that represents you). The companions are individuals fighting by your side. They should have their choises as well.

Modifié par Gisle Aune, 17 janvier 2011 - 08:42 .

[Amioran]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Ok, well a character can "be archetypal" if that character is based on a literary archetype. The hero, the damsel, the white wizard, the christ figure, or any other such archetype. The character gets fleshed out and has it's own personal traits, as you have mentioned. But once the character has been fully personalized you still refer to that character as "archetypal" because the theme and premise of the character was based on one of those literary archetypes.

It is referred as "archetypal" because it is builded up from an estabilshed role in literature, but the character itself doesn't become an archetype, as the role (or whatever defines that archetype). It is just an archetypal character. Then not all characters becomes archetypal just because they are builded by archetypes, because every character in truth is, it is just a term used in literature (more in teathre) to understand the type of role the character will usually have.

Modifié par Amioran, 17 janvier 2011 - 08:42 .

[Merced652]

Amioran wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

Not if those characters are really characters, because this will remove their personalization. You have said it yourself just a moment ago. If they will allow you to do that then the characterization will be removed and you will have again an archetype, not a real character.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

Again you are talking of an archetype as it is the same as a character, while the two are not the same thing. Customization is perfectly fine for an archetype because there's no the same definition as a real character there. So you create the character yourself, by and by. When a character is already present why do you want to customize what defines the same? If you do so then that characterization will be removed.

What hes saying is that if they remove their personalization of the given characters then that gives him latitude to inject his own personalization on to those characters. Meaning he can roleplay that isabella at some point has decided for whatever reason that using a bow has its advantages and would then choose to use bows. Because bows are available to the rogue archetype this should be possible, but just like bioware is intent on making her less than a moral character they are also forcing other aspects upon you.

In addition to that, he said if he failed to give them personalization then that would be a failing of his, and not the games. However not being able to inject any meaningful personalization in to the character substantially reduces any roleplaying opportunities that otherwise would be open to exploration.

As it is, they are really turning this genre in to interactive movies or novels where you turn you page 81 and realize this **** sucks.

Modifié par Merced652, 17 janvier 2011 - 08:44 .

[Loki_344]

Good lord. If when reading the first post of this topic, had I rolled my eyes any harder I would have snapped my own neck.

[Amioran]

Ok, now enough, we are boring everyone with this discussion. ;-)

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

I think this right here probably is a major differing point between the views on this subject. For some like myself we are the player character, he/she is our window and influence into this world.

That would make him not a character at all, but an avatar.

Even the game's documentation does not support that interpretation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Amioran wrote...

Not if those characters are really characters, because this will remove their personalization. You have said it yourself just a moment ago.[/quote]
No I didn't.  I agreed I would have to remove BioWare's personalisation, but that does not require that I simply leave the spot vacant.

Rather than removing the personalisation, I can instead replace it with my own, a personalisation I've designed to accommodate whatever change I made through customisation.
[quoet]If they will allow you to do that then the characterization will be removed and you will have again an archetype, not a real character.[/quote]
He'll be a real character again after I add the personalisation back in.  You're ignoring this step.
[quote]When a character is already present why do you want to customize what defines the same?[/quote]
Because I don't think the character is actually present until after I've added the personalisation myself.

[bsbcaer]

Gisle Aune wrote...

WarriorHawke to another companion

Hawke: Why wouldn't you wear this armor?
Companion: It's the Maker's (Bioware's) will.
H: That's ridiculus, and this piecei s greatly superior
C: It's the Maker's will - just like the longbow rejecting your hands.

Does this makes sense to you? It does not to me - heck, why let it ruin the game? A modder would probably have his/her try at removing that feature when -if - a toolset comes out - though we'll see massie changes in breast size on women's armor.

Allow me to fix the conversation for you:

Hawke: Why wouldn't you wear this armor?
Companion: It's the Maker's (Bioware's) will.
H: That works for me.  Here, have these runes, rings, etc. to improve what you're wearing.
C: Thanks, that was quite nice of you.  I was getting tired of being injured by that Ogre over there.

[Russalka]

How much or what people think is "theirs" in the game is completely subjective.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Gisle Aune wrote...

The only bright side about the characters biowarely rejecting other clothing is the realism. In fact, you're a group of people, not a dictator and three slaves.

No, you're four people, each of whom might decide do dress differently from how BioWare intended. 

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

I don't think a avatar need not be a character. I am playing as a character (Hawke as I define him/her to be) and exploring the world, influencing the world through him/her. I being myself acting out how my Hawke would act.

So yes, it is an avatar in that it is my representation in this digital world. It just need not be actually myself. To make a movie/play analogy. Just like a actor in a movie, is that character not him/herself. To continue this to NPCs they are unique characters as well portrayed by actors (the writers).

Modifié par Sigil_Beguiler123, 17 janvier 2011 - 08:53 .

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Gisle Aune wrote...

The only bright side about the characters biowarely rejecting other clothing is the realism. In fact, you're a group of people, not a dictator and three slaves.

No, you're four people, each of whom might decide do dress differently from how BioWare intended. 

You play as Hawke, who has companions.  You are not four seperate people.  This is clearly how Bioware has designed it and it is how they designed the first game.  You are not playing the companion, you do not get to choose their responses, you're playing as the Warden.

[moilami]

Russalka wrote...

How much or what people think is "theirs" in the game is completely subjective.

No, every game I own is mine. But trademarks and other intellectual property in the games are not mine. I can't begin to make copies of my games and sell them in the same way I can't begin to make copies of motorbike I own and sell them.

But...I do like in certain way of that subjectivity of property...and hereby I chose your bra and unmentionables are mine from this on and I request you to send them to me for closer inspection!

[Merced652]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Gisle Aune wrote...

The only bright side about the characters biowarely rejecting other clothing is the realism. In fact, you're a group of people, not a dictator and three slaves.

No, you're four people, each of whom might decide do dress differently from how BioWare intended. 

You play as Hawke, who has companions.  You are not four seperate people.  This is clearly how Bioware has designed it and it is how they designed the first game.  You are not playing the companion, you do not get to choose their responses, you're playing as the Warden.

Then it can't be described as party or squad based, which i'm fairly certain both DA:O and ME1/2 were described as.

[Heimdall]

Merced652 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Gisle Aune wrote...

The only bright side about the characters biowarely rejecting other clothing is the realism. In fact, you're a group of people, not a dictator and three slaves.

No, you're four people, each of whom might decide do dress differently from how BioWare intended. 

You play as Hawke, who has companions.  You are not four seperate people.  This is clearly how Bioware has designed it and it is how they designed the first game.  You are not playing the companion, you do not get to choose their responses, you're playing as the Warden.

Then it can't be described as party or squad based, which i'm fairly certain both DA:O and ME1/2 were described as.

Sure it can, but the idea that the companions are just as much your character to to control as Hawke is is simply untrue.  You command the companion but they are not the same as your player character.

[Solid N7]

Sylvius the Mad you are a troll