1044 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

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. 

No you are not.  You are just way too selective with your 'logic' Sylvius.  If you were playing Icewind Dale you would be six people because that is how the game is designed.  You are not playing Icewind Dale.  You often talk about real life logic and yet you totally suspend it when convenient.  (As in be in a work group and tell the people you work with how to dress.)

Here is a serious question.  How far exactly do you want to go in handling your companions and what makes it logical for you to stop at some point?

You want to totally control them in battle.
You want to totally control  waht they wear.
Do you want to totally control what they say?  What race they are?  What class they are?

[Meltemph]

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.

Semantics.   If this is what the "problem" is then it really adds nothing to the discussion, seeing as it is a difference on the classification of a game and the genre it fits into.   Not everyone agree's with the classifications(Metroid anyone?) and even then it really does not mean anything in and of itself.  

Modifié par Meltemph, 17 janvier 2011 - 09:10 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lord Aesir wrote...

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 why do I get to decide what weapons they use?  Or what skills and talents they learn?

Beerfish wrote...

No you are not.  You are just way too selective with your 'logic' Sylvius.  If you were playing Icewind Dale you would be six people because that is how the game is designed.  You are not playing Icewind Dale.

I never played IWD.  Sometimes I regret that.

You often talk about real life logic and yet you totally suspend it when convenient.  (As in be in a work group and tell the people you work with how to dress.)

If I happened to be the consciousness for the entire group, that would make perfect sense.

As it happens, in the real world I am but one person's consciousness.

Here is a serious question.  How far exactly do you want to go in handling your companions and what makes it logical for you to stop at some point?

You want to totally control them in battle.
You want to totally control  waht they wear.
Do you want to totally control what they say?  What race they are?  What class they are?

I'd like to be able to have then act as party spokesman, certainly.  If Leliana is more charismatic than the Warden, it would make sense to have her be the one talking to people to convince them of things.

As for race and class, giving the player control over those things might be difficult within the game's lore unless the entire party starts together.  But, I'd also be willing to say, "Go ahead! It's your game, after all."

Hmm.  I've heard that somewhere before.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Semantics. 

Semantics matter.

Though I'll agree that this particular distinction doesn't make much difference in this discussion.

[Meltemph]

Then why do I get to decide what weapons they use? Or what skills and talents they learn?

Gameplay

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

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 why do I get to decide what weapons they use?  Or what skills and talents they learn?

Gameplay mechanics and your character's position as leader, it doesn't mean you're playing their characters, you do not control their characters, only your character's interactions with them.  You are not playing a group conciousness.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 17 janvier 2011 - 09:20 .

[Merci357]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You often talk about real life logic and yet you totally suspend it when convenient.  (As in be in a work group and tell the people you work with how to dress.)

If I happened to be the consciousness for the entire group, that would make perfect sense.

But you are not the group consciousness. Otherwise they wouldn't object to some of your decisions, sometimes disagreeing with your decisions, sometimes even more, defiling the Urn comes to mind.

[bsbcaer]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

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 why do I get to decide what weapons they use?  Or what skills and talents they learn?

Gameplay mechanics and your character's position as leader, it doesn't mean you're playing their characters, you do not control their characters, only your character's interactions with them.  You are not playing a group conciousness.

Resistance is futile!

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then why do I get to decide what weapons they use?  Or what skills and talents they learn?

Because the relationship, your position as a player isn't consistent throughout the experience.

[moilami]

Beerfish wrote...

Here is a serious question.  How far exactly do you want to go in handling your companions and what makes it logical for you to stop at some point?

You want to totally control them in battle.
You want to totally control  waht they wear.
Do you want to totally control what they say?  What race they are?  What class they are?

You did not ask me about this but as it is interesting and good question I answer.

You want to totally control them in battle.

I want to lead them at times because planning, training, and co-operation is A and O of special operations. So, when things need to get done fast and clean they better humble themselves and do what I say and not mess around brainlessly as that is not very realistical.

You want to totally control  waht they wear.

Well, Morri and other chicks, I don't care that much but preferably in suggestive clothes or naked. Of male toons I don't care at all but prefer them to wear clothes. I might actually appreciate it if Morri would refuse to take clothes away unless in love to me, I am with her alone, and we are not in combat. Still not sure thought would I want that kind of feature, but I would appreciate it.

Do you want to totally control what they say? 

Of course not.

What race they are? 

Nope.

What class they are?

Nope.

[Mike Laidlaw]

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.

I disagree. Sharply.

You are essentially claiming that any restrictions on your gameplay completely obliterate player agency. I would put forward that working within a rule structure that still allows for player agency is what defines a game from a complete sandbox made entirely from imagination.

If you cannot handle restrictions like, say, only rogues being able to duel weild, then you do not think that mages should have been restricted to only a certain class of weapons in D&D, or that you should be able to buy a hotel without paying for houses in Monopoly, or that warriors should start with as much humility as shepherds in Ultima 4 just becuase you want them to or, taken to its extreme, that you should be able to set up any board game in the world and say "I win!" without playing, because, hey it's your game.

To look at an example, I will never apologize for giving rogues a distinct role from warriors. We have started with a class-based system, and the decision was made to own that and turn them into proper classes, rather than nigh-identical combatants with slightly different fashion sense. Why? Because it makes you make choices. It makes those choices, with thier pros and cons matter.

So yes, it's your game. But it's still a game, and a game has rules so that you can work within them, feel smart when you find a way around them, and feel like you need to get better at them when it hands you your ass.

And if that's not something you enjoy, then I would suggest that gaming, as a whole will fail for you as a medium.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then why do I get to decide what weapons they use?  Or what skills and talents they learn?

Because the relationship, your position as a player isn't consistent throughout the experience.

Then the game is broken.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Merci357 wrote...

But you are not the group consciousness. Otherwise they wouldn't object to some of your decisions, sometimes disagreeing with your decisions, sometimes even more, defiling the Urn comes to mind.

I equate those disagreements to the internal monologue of the group consciousness.

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then why do I get to decide what weapons they use?  Or what skills and talents they learn?

Because the relationship, your position as a player isn't consistent throughout the experience.

Then the game is broken.

No, I would very much disagree, it is a game, the only thing you could argue is broken is story being separate from the mechanics but the only 2 ways to fix that would either give you no control over the characters or full control.   But most people I would wager don't ignore the reality of the real world while playing the game.

[Meltemph]

I equate those disagreements to the internal monologue of the group consciousness.

Outside of the perception of full control, what is the benefit to viewing the written characters like that? I mean, I would think RPing multiple characters would hinder the personalization of RP as the protagonist.

[Black_Warden]

I don't want to involve myself in this discussion, but i'm curious.



Sylvius, i've read all your posts (and the rest of this thread) and what you say makes sense, i kind of get what you want and understand where you think the game / RPGs in general are failing you. but i wonder if you can aknowledge that, where your ideal RPG experience is concerned, you're a minority, and (cue wild mass guessing) that most fans of the RPG genre as it is wouldn't get a whole lot of enjoyment out of such an unrestricted, self-defined format?

[StormbringerGT]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

I disagree. Sharply.

You are essentially claiming that any restrictions on your gameplay completely obliterate player agency. I would put forward that working within a rule structure that still allows for player agency is what defines a game from a complete sandbox made entirely from imagination.

If you cannot handle restrictions like, say, only rogues being able to duel weild, then you do not think that mages should have been restricted to only a certain class of weapons in D&D, or that you should be able to buy a hotel without paying for houses in Monopoly, or that warriors should start with as much humility as shepherds in Ultima 4 just becuase you want them to or, taken to its extreme, that you should be able to set up any board game in the world and say "I win!" without playing, because, hey it's your game.

To look at an example, I will never apologize for giving rogues a distinct role from warriors. We have started with a class-based system, and the decision was made to own that and turn them into proper classes, rather than nigh-identical combatants with slightly different fashion sense. Why? Because it makes you make choices. It makes those choices, with thier pros and cons matter.

So yes, it's your game. But it's still a game, and a game has rules so that you can work within them, feel smart when you find a way around them, and feel like you need to get better at them when it hands you your ass.

And if that's not something you enjoy, then I would suggest that gaming, as a whole will fail for you as a medium.

Exactly correct. When I buy a movie or a book whats in there is set in stone. I can do nothing to alter the outcome of either. The artist/director/writer etc. Had a vision he created and hoped I would enjoy. I can imagine different endings to a book all I want but whats there is whats there.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

I disagree. Sharply.

You are essentially claiming that any restrictions on your gameplay completely obliterate player agency.

I don't think I am.  I'm only objecting to restrictions on my gameplay that seems to exist only to restrict my gameplay.

I would put forward that working within a rule structure that still allows for player agency is what defines a game from a complete sandbox made entirely from imagination.

I would agree with that.  This is why I don't object to the game's class structure, for example.  Or the requirement that I learn some talents before others.  Or the design that says my strength stat has a specific application within the game.

If you cannot handle restrictions like, say, only rogues being able to duel weild, then you do not think that mages should have been restricted to only a certain class of weapons in D&D,

To be fair, D&D only prevented mages from becoming proficient with those weapons.  They could still use them - they'd just suck.

or that you should be able to buy a hotel without paying for houses in Monopoly, or that warriors should start with as much humility as shepherds in Ultima 4 just becuase you want them to

Again, I concede that the game's setting should have rules, and I'm willing to let you set those rules.

It's the gameplay within those rules that I don't think you should try to control as much as you do.

or, taken to its extreme, that you should be able to set up any board game in the world and say "I win!" without playing, because, hey it's your game.

Here I actually think that's a perfectly legitimate use of a board game.  If declaring yourself the winner of Candyland floats your boat, go right ahead.

If you want other people to acknowledge your victory, that's something else entirely.  But you design single player games.  How I choose to play them has no bearing on other players.

To look at an example, I will never apologize for giving rogues a distinct role from warriors. We have started with a class-based system, and the decision was made to own that and turn them into proper classes, rather than nigh-identical combatants with slightly different fashion sense. Why? Because it makes you make choices. It makes those choices, with thier pros and cons matter.

I don't really object to this.

But ad hoc restrictions within those classes - say, Isabela not being able to use a bow - that's a bridge too far.  If the game's lore would allow her to use a bow, then let us have her use a bow.

If she can't use a bow, where's the benefit?  What do the players get out of that restriction?  Where's the payoff?

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Then the game is broken.

Oh no, I can't imagine many games (beyond a certain level of complexity, pacman is pretty consistent) meets that definition entirely. I agree it would be interesting to attain such a state, but it's clearly not vital to the experience, so it's not a case of right or wrong merely one interesting direction.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 17 janvier 2011 - 09:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Outside of the perception of full control, what is the benefit to viewing the written characters like that? I mean, I would think RPing multiple characters would hinder the personalization of RP as the protagonist.

Who is the protagonist?  I'm sure most people think the Warden is the protagonist of DAO, but do I really need to play it that way?

In Baldur's Gate, I could take Edwin, put him at the front of the party, and have his persona make all the decisions.  Now Edwin is the protagonist (indeed, I think every person is always the protagonist of his own story), and he gets to stomp around the Sword Coast being self-aggrandizing and advancing his own interests, and hey, it turns out he has a Bhaalspawn as a lackey.  That's pretty cool for Edwin.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Black_Warden wrote...

Sylvius, i've read all your posts (and the rest of this thread) and what you say makes sense, i kind of get what you want and understand where you think the game / RPGs in general are failing you. but i wonder if you can aknowledge that, where your ideal RPG experience is concerned, you're a minority, and (cue wild mass guessing) that most fans of the RPG genre as it is wouldn't get a whole lot of enjoyment out of such an unrestricted, self-defined format?

I absolutely concede that, which is why I don't typically ask for the features that make their gameplay fun to be removed just to force them to play the game my way.

What's happening now, though, appears to be the features I like being removed just to force me to play the game their way, and their way doesn't get any better as a result, so why are they bothering to fence me in?

[Meltemph]

If she can't use a bow, where's the benefit? What do the players get out of that restriction? Where's the payoff?

I would assume her fighting style for them, was part of her personality that was written for her, and they want that personality and concept kept true. The benefit is relative to the "theme" that the individual likes and what the writers had intended in terms of scene's and what not. The written characters all using very specific style(it looks like) to give the impression that they are their own in terms of personality and thought, is my guess. As to the benefit, it is viewed as a story thing, I would assume.

[Saibh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Here I actually think that's a perfectly legitimate use of a board game.  If declaring yourself the winner of Candyland floats your boat, go right ahead.

If you want other people to acknowledge your victory, that's something else entirely.  But you design single player games.  How I choose to play them has no bearing on other players.

You haven't won. You essentially pulled out a colorful piece of square cardboard and said "I am victorious!"

You didn't win Candyland. You won Colorful Square Cardboard Game. By not abiding by the rules and limitations they set out for you, you defeat the purpose of the game--worse, you don't acknowledge there is a game to be played. You're playing a different one, one of your making.

BioWare is not making your game. They are making their game, and you can play it in the different ways they allow.

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I absolutely concede that, which is why I don't typically ask for the features that make their gameplay fun to be removed just to force them to play the game my way.

What's happening now, though, appears to be the features I like being removed just to force me to play the game their way, and their way doesn't get any better as a result, so why are they bothering to fence me in?

The thing is though for some of us we do think it is getting better as a result. We like that we have more defined characters, that they will be more unique visually, stats wise and personality wise. On a purely gameplay level too the companion specific specializations also is another benefit of this restriction. We get more unique gameplay abilities and also make the character more unique.

[Demx]

I am strangely reminded of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and the Sherlock Holmes series. Holmes was suppose to die in his battle with Professor Moriarty. However, readers protested that Holmes needed to be brought back to life and Sir Doyle was forced to revive the character. So go figure whose game this is suppose to be.

Modifié par Siradix, 17 janvier 2011 - 09:46 .