281 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

And playing a cRPG is a horribly inefficient way to roleplay just to avoid interacting with other people.

Do you know of another way to do it?

[Meltemph]

You're just acting.

What do you think acting is? Acting fits the definition of role-play perfectly, so what exactly are you trying to argue?



What you are saying you want is to not only role-play but also at the same time be the writer of the persona you are playing as. Those are 2 different things.

[bsbcaer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's a quantifiable loss.

I see no value in those skill combinations being available or not.

That doesn't change that they're there (or not), or that some people might want to use them.

If they're not available, then some people are deprived of something they would like.  The others are unaffected.

If they are available, then some people get added gameplay benefits, while the others are unaffected.

If an all archer party is available, no one is making you play one.  But if an all archer party is unavailable, those who would like to play are being forced not to.

At least until we mod the game to add back in those lost features.

I should really know better than to engage Sylvius, but once more into the breach I suppose...How is a feature "lost" if it's not included in the game to begin with?

[Dhiro]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

And playing a cRPG is a horribly inefficient way to roleplay just to avoid interacting with other people.

Do you know of another way to do it?

Drinking heavily? Being a otaku?

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Do you know of another way to do it?

Do you know of another way to tell an interactive story in which the choices of the player are reflected in a reactive game world?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 janvier 2011 - 11:23 .

[bsbcaer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Inner monologue stories do not apply though.

If that's the case, then no one is roleplaying.  Then you never know why your character does something unless the game tells you, and if the game tells you then you clearly didn't get to choose it.  So why are you even bothering to play the game?  Why would anyone?

Come now, Im sure that we all agree that there are varying degrees of roleplaying

[HTTP 404]

Ive tried to agree to disagree with Sylvious but its only Im wrong, he's right. haha

[Sylvius the Mad]

bsbcaer wrote...

I should really know better than to engage Sylvius, but once more into the breach I suppose...How is a feature "lost" if it's not included in the game to begin with?

They were possible features.  They were possible features right up until the moment when they weren't included in the game.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Do you know of another way to do it?

Do you know of another way to tell an interactive story in which the choices of the player are reflected in a reactive game world?

No, but I think that's mutually exclusive with roleplaying.

[bsbcaer]

HTTP 404 wrote...

to be fair the best role playing is paper and pen with friends...

Ding Ding Ding...we have a winner!

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No, but I think that's mutually exclusive with roleplaying.

The way you approach it?  Sure.

I'm not convinced I should care though, as long as the changes enhance my experience - something you seemed to be denying it did in the initial post I quoted.  Recall how I don't actually believe cRPGs should have ever tried to do what you seem to want them to.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 janvier 2011 - 11:29 .

[Merci357]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Do you know of another way to do it?

Do you know of another way to tell an interactive story in which the choices of the player are reflected in a reactive game world?

No, but I think that's mutually exclusive with roleplaying.

How? Why? I can't follow. A interactive story is a requirement for RPG. Without it's, well, day dreaming, nothing more.

[bsbcaer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

I should really know better than to engage Sylvius, but once more into the breach I suppose...How is a feature "lost" if it's not included in the game to begin with?

They were possible features.  They were possible features right up until the moment when they weren't included in the game..

Then they are not lost if they were never in the game to begin with...you could have fifty million different possible features, but that doesn't mean that 49 999 968 features were lost from the game...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm not convinced I should care though, as long as the changes enhance my experience - something you seemed to be denying it did in the initial post I quoted. 

You were quoting my assertion that having more party configuration options was a universal good.

And it is.

Having characters who are written with more depth (I was going to say "deeper characters", but that's not strictly true), however, sometimes requires we lose some of those options.  Having the characters written with more depth benefits you because you're either unable or unwilling to impart that depth yourself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Merci357 wrote...

How? Why? I can't follow. A interactive story is a requirement for RPG. Without it's, well, day dreaming, nothing more.

And interactive setting is a requirement.  The story arises from that.

I maintain that the story doesn't exist until the player has played the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

HTTP 404 wrote...

to be fair the best role playing is paper and pen with friends...

That requires other people, and as such isn't something I'm willing to discuss.

[bsbcaer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm not convinced I should care though, as long as the changes enhance my experience - something you seemed to be denying it did in the initial post I quoted. 

You were quoting my assertion that having more party configuration options was a universal good.

And it is.

Having characters who are written with more depth (I was going to say "deeper characters", but that's not strictly true), however, sometimes requires we lose some of those options.  Having the characters written with more depth benefits you because you're either unable or unwilling to impart that depth yourself.

Alright, assuming that a high majority of players are unlike you and "are unable or unwilling to impart that depth" themselves, would it not benefit Bioware to design a game for the majority of the players over the minority?

[NKKKK]

I love the upsettingshorts/Sylvius fights.

[Meltemph]

Having the characters written with more depth benefits you because you're either unable or unwilling to impart that depth yourself.

Well ya, it is an interactive medium, you should want to be able to see and hear that depth in game, and until you can figure out how that can happen AND play the way you want, I will strongly lean on the writers filling out the characters, much more so, then me or whoever else.

[bsbcaer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

to be fair the best role playing is paper and pen with friends...

That requires other people, and as such isn't something I'm willing to discuss.

Why not?  It's a perfectly valid assertion and it's accurate...if you want to do your best roleplaying, then pen and paper is where it's at

[upsettingshorts]

NKKKK wrote...

I love the upsettingshorts/Sylvius fights.

Eh they feel like repeats of the same show to me.  The In Exile/Sylvius ones are more interesting. 

Oh and just for the record it's "unwilling," Sylvius. 

[Mr.House]

I like this low number. There was too many squadmates in ME2, I only liked five out of the 12 >.>



I rather have less and better quality then more and less quality.

[bsbcaer]

Oh, is there any way we can draw the conversation back to at least discussing characters and there number so the poor OP doesn't get their thread locked down because of discussions over roleplaying etc etc etc

[NKKKK]

Mr.House wrote...

I like this low number. There was too many squadmates in ME2, I only liked five out of the 12 >.>

I rather have less and better quality then more and less quality.

Sure thing, Robert.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Well ya, it is an interactive medium, you should want to be able to see and hear that depth in game, and until you can figure out how that can happen AND play the way you want, I will strongly lean on the writers filling out the characters, much more so, then me or whoever else.

But then, is it still an interactive medium?  If the writers are filling in all the details, what part of the game remains interactive?

[Merci357]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm not convinced I should care though, as long as the changes enhance my experience - something you seemed to be denying it did in the initial post I quoted. 

You were quoting my assertion that having more party configuration options was a universal good.

And it is.

Having characters who are written with more depth (I was going to say "deeper characters", but that's not strictly true), however, sometimes requires we lose some of those options.  Having the characters written with more depth benefits you because you're either unable or unwilling to impart that depth yourself.

If I did this, I'm telling the story. Why would I need a video game, then, and not rather play pen&paper RPGs, as the dungeon master? I guess it breaks down to this. You want to play cRPGs as the DM, I want it to play as a player - with my character as the only one I have direct control over. The game substitutes human players with companions. The more fleshed out they are, the more depth they have, the better. I can influence them, through dialogue, through actions, but they are not mine. Can you at least recognize that point of view?