281 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

bsbcaer wrote...

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

I would argue that, at least when it comes to sylv, and my take on his stance, it is more about how the role playing aspect should be dealt with in a video game format.  Not necessarily what is "technically" an RPG, even if it seems like that.

Modifié par Meltemph, 28 janvier 2011 - 11:47 .

[upsettingshorts]

It's fairly difficult to delineate between the topic and Sylvius' position on gameplay issues without getting into a discussion about the nature of RPGs.

[Meltemph]

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

I'll answer your question with another. Is Heavy Rain, to you, an interactive medium?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Merci357 wrote...

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?

Sure.

Though, to correct you, I also want to be the player.  But the question is whether we want the role of the other players to be taken on my the writers or by the player himself.

In a tabletop game, you generally play a single character, and perhaps some of his followers, while the rest of the party is controlled by other players.  In a single-player CRPG, there are no other players, so that leaves some characters uncontrolled.  You're describing a game where the role of the other players is played by the computer, and the player still plays just one character.  I'm suggesting that it's also possible for the game to allow the player to take the place of all of the players, and have the computer act only as the DM.

I can see the appeal of doing it either way, but DA2 isn't actually doing that.  DA2 is picking a middle road that doesn't make much sense.

In DA2, the computer isn't playing the other characters - at least, not all the time.  In combat, and during level-up, and frankly every part of the game that isn't conversation, the companion characters are being played by you, the player.  But then suddenly, in conversation, the computer takes over.

What's up with that?  Whose characters are they?  If they're being played by other players (the computer), then they should choose how to level up themselves, and where to go themselves, and how to fight themselves.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

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

I'll answer your question with another. Is Heavy Rain, to you, an interactive medium?

I have no idea what Heavy Rain is.

[Chris Priestly]

Off topic and closed.

If poeple continue to take threads off topic, they will be removed fromt he forums rather than the threrds.




LOCKDOWN!

[lv12medic]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

But what about the game?  Any depth the player adds is hollow at best in regards to the game world being presented because the game world doesn't recognize it.  If the game world only recognizes a companion as filling in a role (it's or your choosing, doesn't matter as it's just part of the mechanics) in combat, while story and reasoning for being there in the game world is left up to the player to decide makes a character flat in their actual presentation in the game.

Take any avatar on the screen in a game, and you can create any idea you want about that avatar, who they are, where they're from, why they're there, what food they like, etc.  That defines an avatar into a character with depth, but only recognized by you and not the game.  Where as a avatar that is defined into a character in the game by it's developers, is thus recognized by the game and gives them depth in the game as presented by the game.