406 réponses à ce sujet

[Zjarcal]

errant_knight wrote...
Nope. Because that's choosing my words. It's fairly easy to imagine a conversation when one knows what one is going to say, and there's rarely  a case where there isn't a response that I can roleplay. Rolplaying that I don't know what I'm going to say except 'this will be nice' or 'this will be snarky' is something else entirely. But as I say, it's also the physical use of the GUI in order to do so. When you look at words, they can be as thoughts occurring to you. A circular interface with icons, not so much.

If I recall correctly, you said that the way it was done in Leliana's Song didn't bother you too much, even though the responses were also paraphrased. Twas almost like what you'd have with a dialogue wheel... minus the wheel. So I guess it's mostly the wheel in the end?

I can understand your stance though, especially for the Dragon Age setting. It seems so much more fitting in Mass Effect really. Alas, it's here to stay, so I'll just try to embrace it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

You can't say he "imagined" the game giving hin goals.  From very early on, characters tell you to do things, you have a quest log that tells you to do things.

Those are instructions for the character, not the player.  And the quest log is simply a record of those instructions.

He absolutely does need to imagine that those instructions are meant for him, because the characters who are actually giving those instructions are unaware that he exists.  He's not in the game world.  Why would he think the characters in that world are talking to him?

That's like saying that some alien reading this conversation right now would think we were addressing him.  That's nonsense.

[Sjofn]

Aris Ravenstar wrote...

Meredith: [stops Hawke and crew at the Kirkwall gates] I'm sorry, you cannot come into this city.

[DIALOGUE OPTION CHOSEN: "I see your point."]

Hawke: I see your point. Now let me show you mine. [stabs Meredith]

Meredith: [takes the blade in the shoulder] Argh! Templars, attack!!

[Bloody battle ensues]

Player: Wh-.. What just happened?

Hahaha, yes, exactly. Although I have to admit, I might be too busy laughing to actually be mad if THAT happened. 

[errant_knight]

Zjarcal wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
Nope. Because that's choosing my words. It's fairly easy to imagine a conversation when one knows what one is going to say, and there's rarely  a case where there isn't a response that I can roleplay. Rolplaying that I don't know what I'm going to say except 'this will be nice' or 'this will be snarky' is something else entirely. But as I say, it's also the physical use of the GUI in order to do so. When you look at words, they can be as thoughts occurring to you. A circular interface with icons, not so much.

If I recall correctly, you said that the way it was done in Leliana's Song didn't bother you too much, even though the responses were also paraphrased. Twas almost like what you'd have with a dialogue wheel... minus the wheel. So I guess it's mostly the wheel in the end?

I can understand your stance though, especially for the Dragon Age setting. It seems so much more fitting in Mass Effect really. Alas, it's here to stay, so I'll just try to embrace it.

That's true. The only problems I had with dialogue in Leliana's Song was a lack of interaction between Leliana and her companions, and the replacement of opportunities for conversation with cinematic moments.

But that was a bit different. We were playing Leliana, a known companion with a pre-established voice, not playing our own character, and most of us accepted that out of a love for the character and a desire to know more about her (Just imagine how much it disappoints me that there was to be an Alistair DLC after that which was cancelled). We weren't roleplaying a created character, but going along with one we already knew.

I think you're right, though. For me, the dialogue wheel is more problematic, although my acceptance of a voiced PC would depend entirely on how close that actor came to the character I wanted, and would make replays with different characters far more difficult for me. I suspect repeated replays as with DA:O are unlikely, and would be even without the dialogue wheel.

[In Exile]

[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
This isn't necessarily true -- picking a friendly dialogue line by all means can and should have the character smile or otherwise appear friendly for example, angry line can make the character frown, choosing a *hug* action by all means should have the character perform the hug and actually appear like they're into it.[/quote]

I'm going to summon: Sylvius here.

If I pick a friendly dialogue choice, it doesn't mean I want to have a PC who is outwardly friendly. I might want someone who is very reserved, or stoic (i.e. the Mark Meer ME2 complaints).

I might want to be harsh without being visibly angry - there are people who are like this.

Certainly these are all reasonable assumptions about character behaviour... but they predefine your character.

[quote] I think it's not as much about "emotionless state" but about having ability to choose the emotion in question, with selection covering as wide as possible range of choices.

It's quite different from being forced to put up with single voice that may be not to your liking and/or not fit the character you're playing.[/quote]

But in your case, I would be forced with a certain kind of expression. Now, I don't have a problem with this. But that emotional outburst that you think is appropriate to my character might not be; and so we have the problem that you say PC VO creates.

[quote]TheMadCat wrote...

First person in dialogue exchange and
various camera angles in third person for more cinematic scenes is a
step back how? What does doing dialogue in first person have to do with
the cinematic presentation?  [/quote]

It removes entirely the reaction of the PC. An entire conversation in first-person, from start to finish, has no reaction from the PC.

In a conversation that is between the PC and most often one other NPC, by going first person you have just removed half of the conversation.

[quote]TheMadCat wrote...

Again, how does shifting to first
person during dialogue echange restrict enviorment interactions which
can be done in seperate cutscenes? [/quote]

As I said before: this gives you the schizoid camera. I think I see the problem, though.

You're thinking of environmental interaction as some kind of scripted action that would be appropriate for a cut-scene (like walking up to a door and pushing it).

I'm talking about stuff people do while talking, i.e. lying back in a chair and throwing a ball around in their hands, or back and forth between the two people speaking.

Now, obviously there isn't an RPG on the market that has done this. But this is what I think the goal should be, and first person works against this by removing the PC as a ''character'' from the conversation. This is why it is a step back.

[quote]Again, they can. Any interaction that goes beyond the word
selection from the PC can be done through a cutscene with the NPC
speaking during said cutscene if necessary. [/quote]

Which goes right back to schizoid camp and soulless PC. Are we going to have the PC express any kind of emotion during that cut-scene? If yes, we have the predefined emotion problem I already mentioned to tmp. I think there is a way around this, obviously, but it isn't something that would work with first person. If we don't have the PC express emotion and instead stare like an empty puppet, then we haven't avoided the problem of the empty-puppet PC at all.

[quote]Eh? I'm talking about making cut scenes and shifting the camera
from first person to third person (Which has been done), not cure cancer
or put a man on Mars.  [/quote]

...

This is my point. You said if we can't think of a good way to do it, certainly developers good. My point is that this isn't rocket science, and if there is a reasonable and easy way to do it, you and I could certainly come up with it.


[quote]Right, neither of which has anything to do with my first
statement which was one way to alievate the problem of the silent PC
lack of emotion is greatly restrict showing the PC, namely through first
person dialogue and over the shoulder shots and other back angle shots
through the cutscenes. [/quote]

And my point is that by removing the PC you haven't removed the problem at all - you still have a one-sided conversation where only one person is expressing emotion. Saying ''imagine it yourself'' isn't very different if you have your empty puppet on-screen or not.

Now, having the PC express emotion independent of voice is an interesting idea, but the problem with that is that you have to predefine the PC somewhat to do it. I'm 100% on board with this (I think a more linear plots and more predefined PCs, at least as compared to DA:O, are a good thing) but not everyone is, and to many people this is precisely the proble with VO. So it isn't really solving the problem that split us into these two camps at all.

[quote]How does showing less of the PC's face and their emotional reactions
create a more pre-defined PC? [/quote]

But you just said we'd show these reactions in the cut-scene. Or am I misunderstanding you?

[quote]Can't this be the case with any view or angle though? Having the
PC doing something that you find inconsistent with your character? Don't
see how that's unique to what I've said.[/quote]

That's my point. When people say, ''the PC is dead and souless in DA:O'' the lack of expression is the problem. Just removing the PC entirely and replacing the PC with nothing doesn't solve the problem at all. People aren't saying - it bothered me I saw a character model that didn't react - but rather - it bothers me that unlike the well scripted companions, my PC did nothing in game - which is not the same thing.

[quote]How does anything I stated create a more pre-defined
character? You've danced with that notion but haven't really shown how
it directly results. Dialogue exchange is done in a first person
perspective, physical interactions are done through cut scenes. All that
would really change from Origins is during dialogue exchanges, you're
in a first person perspective rather then doing the whole
shot-reverse-shot thing where we constantly saw the emotionless PC
people complain about. [/quote]

Like I said: I don't think you understood by what I meant by interacting with the environment.

That being said, like I said before: you're not solving the problem at all with first person.

People don't want the PC off-screen, and aren't complaining about the model. They want the PC on even footing with the NPCs. You're just talking about hiding the souless PC more.

I think the PC in New Vegas was even more souless and empty than in DA:O. Part of that is how Obsidian designed the game... but part of that is the lack of legitimate interaction between the PC who just dissapears as the game basically looks like it's trying to talk directly to the player.

[quote]Ok, is that your definition of a schizoid camera? When there are
frequest shifts in the shot? Like in every movie, TV show, or game ever
made? How many times do you see a shot actually manage to hold for more
then 5 seconds in the first place? [/quote]

If it's switching from first-person to third-person at the rate at which I think is proper for people to react with the environment, i.e. whenever the PC or NPC move or otherwise shift around while speaking, then we're going from 1-st person to 3-rd person every 3 or so seconds, which is confusing and potentially nauseating.

[quote]I'm honestly not sure what you're looking for? I'm guessing you
want visuals and stuff done more along the lines of Fahrenheit.
[/quote]

I've never played this game; I have no idea what that would be like. I'll youtube a clip and get back to you.

Modifié par In Exile, 01 février 2011 - 07:43 .

[In Exile]

errant_knight wrote...
Nope. Because that's choosing my words. It's fairly easy to imagine a conversation when one knows what one is going to say, and there's rarely  a case where there isn't a response that I can roleplay.

But doesn't that basically make your character dependent on the roll of the dice? i.e. you can only be who the writers let you be.

Were it to be really me (or at least the kind of character I would like) my responses would be 90% sarcastic. To Duncan, to Morrigain, to Wynne... just smartass backtalk and sarcasm. But the game doesn't let you do this. It doesn't let you argue, or defend a belief. It just lets you make vague and empty statements, and that's about as close to taking a position on an issue that you get.

Not to mention that you can never call people out on their BS.

If we're going to talk about psychological distance in terms of what's being said, that happens the second the dialogue list pops up and the writers created your very narrow role that you get to fill.

I just don't see how VO makes a character any more predefined that we already have.

Rolplaying that I don't know what I'm going to say except 'this will be nice' or 'this will be snarky' is something else entirely. But as I say, it's also the physical use of the GUI in order to do so. When you look at words, they can be as thoughts occurring to you. A circular interface with icons, not so much.

Actually, I think the wheel represents thoughts much better. Do you really think in full sentences and know word-for-word what you are going to say before you say it? If so, I would really like to examine how you think, because that's basically the polar opposite of how it is for me.

Modifié par In Exile, 01 février 2011 - 07:50 .

[Rockworm503]

My response to the OP

 

[TheMadCat]

It removes entirely the reaction of the PC. An entire conversation in first-person, from start to finish, has no reaction from the PC.

In
a conversation that is between the PC and most often one other NPC, by
going first person you have just removed half of the conversation.

I'm just going to quote this since it's the clearest stance I've gotten out of your posts and I'm getting tired of the massive quote boxes.

You want your PC to have a heavy visual role, which is fine, but utterly pointless to debate since I was discussing a situation on the opposite of the spectrum. It's a method of reducing the presence of the PC, keeping them subdued (But not removed) aside from the exceptions where a visual is needed to show actions outside of the players control, it's an attempt to make it more of a personal adventure rather then a cinematic experience. It also has the benefits of masking the inherit flaws of a digitaly created character that would be in damn near every shot as well has greatly reducing cost. So yeah, your more into the Fahrenheit and Heavy Rain style presentations where the focus is on a presenting strong cinematic experience and you're simply arguing against something that doesn't fit your tastes.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 01 février 2011 - 09:17 .

[connorthedragonslayer]

I definitely prefer voiced PCs but having a silent PC would not put me off a game.

[Rockworm503]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

You can't say he "imagined" the game giving hin goals.  From very early on, characters tell you to do things, you have a quest log that tells you to do things.

Those are instructions for the character, not the player.  And the quest log is simply a record of those instructions.

He absolutely does need to imagine that those instructions are meant for him, because the characters who are actually giving those instructions are unaware that he exists.  He's not in the game world.  Why would he think the characters in that world are talking to him?

That's like saying that some alien reading this conversation right now would think we were addressing him.  That's nonsense.

LOL except if the alien read this knowing full well that what was written was for his benefit.  Lets not argue semantics here.  The simple fact is that Dragon Age and a lot of other RPGs are video games.  They became video games as soon as they were coded to be as such.  You can say whatever you want about player defined goals or whatever but it was never established that the only reason Pong was a video game was because the game set the goal.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

In Exile wrote...
Actually, I think the wheel represents thoughts much better. Do you really think in full sentences and know word-for-word what you are going to say before you say it?

You are right except that we don't feel amuse or surprised if our choice doesn't hit the jackpot. Babies marvel with their own voices and amused or surprised unexpectedly. But not to fully conscious people. We always know what to expect when we say out things.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 01 février 2011 - 01:02 .

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
Do you really think in full sentences and know word-for-word what you are going to say before you say it?

Yes. I think if what I'm going to say is what I mean to say before saying anything.

[Hollingdale]

FieryDove wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

Sylvius: Why should people bother discussing with you when it all boils down to the fact that you missuse terms by narrowing their meaning down to create some kind of tautology that means you will allways be right?

Because he is always right?

Indeed, I wonder however what the people discussing with him are supposed to get out of it? Perhaps the tautology is of such beauty and intricateness that the continuous revelation of it is a source of great aesthetic pleasure and intellectual stimulance. But it doesn't seem so to me.

[Perfecti0nist]

Agreed. I really hate when the protagonist isn't voiced, it's a major annoyance. It ruins the dialogues and the cinematic aspect of cutscenes. For example, when human male noble finds Rendon Howe:

"After this, I'll kill your wife and daughter, too." 
*blank expression*
Delivery fail.

Look at Dead Space 2. Yeah, it's not an RPG, but still. Isaac is voiced. He now has a personality. He doesn't act like everyone's lackey. He makes some snarky comments. He develops relationships with people. In the first game I couldn't give a damn about Isaac. Now I feel very attached to him.

Modifié par Perfecti0nist, 01 février 2011 - 02:52 .

[TMZuk]

I really hate the voiced protagoist! And voiced or not voiced has nothing to do with the blank stares you get from your character in DA:O. They could have implemented reactions, like lifted eyebrows, shrugs, surprise, smiles, laughs, etc, etc. They could even have voiced them, if they had expanded a little bit on the voice-sets you choose for your character.

The fully voiced character, such as Sheperd or Geralt of Rivia doesn't feel like my character, I feel detached. I'm watching a movie, rather than playing a game. But there are movies far better than, e.g. ME2 or the Witcher, and I'd rather watch them, than play a game that is trying to be a movie.

Modifié par TMZuk, 01 février 2011 - 09:29 .

[Ryzaki]

TMZuk wrote...

I really hate the voiced protagoist! And voiced or not voiced has nothing to do with the blank stares you get from your character in DA:O. They could have implemented reactions, like lifted eyebrows, shrugs, surprise, smiles, laughs, etc, etc. They could even have voiced them, if they had expanded a little bit on the voice-sets you choose for your character.

The fully voiced character, such as Sheperd or Geralt of Rivia doesn't feel like my character, I feel detached. I'm watching a movie, rather than playing a game. But there are movies far better than, e.g. ME2 or the Witcher, and I'd rather watch them, than playing a game that is trying to be a movie.

The bolded.

ME to me is just a really crappy movie with a ham plot.

ME2 is actually the first BW game I only play for the gameplay and not the storyline.

[Riknas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

You can't say he "imagined" the game giving hin goals.  From very early on, characters tell you to do things, you have a quest log that tells you to do things.

Those are instructions for the character, not the player.  And the quest log is simply a record of those instructions.

He absolutely does need to imagine that those instructions are meant for him, because the characters who are actually giving those instructions are unaware that he exists.  He's not in the game world.  Why would he think the characters in that world are talking to him?

That's like saying that some alien reading this conversation right now would think we were addressing him.  That's nonsense.

C'mon guys. This argument has been becoming overly existential to the point it just seems idiotic. I feel compelled to tell you all we are actually all living in the Matrix and are all batteries for the machines.

There's this part of the game called the journal. It speaks entirely in the second person, so it's perfectly easy to imply that it is indeed, addressing teh play as well. We already made it past the "start" menu and went through the 'character creation' interface. That as well, there are second person messages (talking to "you") which consist of the tutorial explaining game mechanics. These games must keep in mind that there is indeed, a player, and how much it tries to address you, the player, is up to the developers.

Whether or we want a CRPG to be something other thana video game, is completely irrelevant, because the industry, even the developers are designing this and calling it a video game. By the most basic definition of "Video Game", this is one.

Deal with it. While this is far from a perfect analogy or explanation, this has gone on too long. That said, while its not perfect, clearly if we're going to keep picking things apart we're just looking for a reason to argue and it borders on obnoxious. And by "borders on obnoxious", I mean this is actually very obnoxious. I'd recommend ceasing and desisting this conversatin, everyone is rather set in their opinions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, as someone mentioned "Books are outdated, but they're still here" (no, it's not a direct quote, I call it accurate paraphrasing). The silent protagonist can be valid, as can a Voiced Over character. These all have been used both by bioware and all games RPG or otherwise. Voiced characters, non-voiced. Is a physical book better than a kindle edition? Not REALLY, we could argue pros and cons, but this is a matter of preference. I've enjoyed most Bioware games that used the silent protagonist, however I've also enjoyed the Mass Effect titles a great deal and I look forward to the new Dragon Age 2.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Perfecti0nist wrote...
Look at Dead Space 2. Yeah, it's not an RPG, but still. Isaac is voiced. He now has a personality. He doesn't act like everyone's lackey. He makes some snarky comments. He develops relationships with people. In the first game I couldn't give a damn about Isaac. Now I feel very attached to him.

Of course he has a personality and should be alive. He should be well voiced too. You yourself even write him as "he" and not "I". After all he is Isaac. Not you.

Your attachment to him is the same kind of attachment as husband and his wife. Not the kind of attachment for yourself, which is why I wouldn't surprise many wrote their supposely characters as "he/she" instead of "I". But we are talking about RPG here aren't we? If we keep defining our own main character as "he/she" then what's the purpose of roleplaying that character? Wouldn't it's much easier to enjoy storybook and/or watching cinema than trying in vain to find serious attachment with your own supposely character? 

How is it you feel yourself dull in Dragon Age: Origins is beyond me. You really need to focus and see things through your character and not from outside that dull, empty, soulless cartoon. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

In Exile wrote...

It removes entirely the reaction of the PC. An entire conversation in first-person, from start to finish, has no reaction from the PC.

In a conversation that is between the PC and most often one other NPC, by going first person you have just removed half of the conversation.

Are you playing the character, or directing a movie in which you want to give the actor direction and then see how they play the line or the scene? 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 01 février 2011 - 04:29 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

As for the "paraphrased" lines, they drive me bonkers sometimes. Show me what the character is going to say, not "Thane, I want you."

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...
You can't say he "imagined" the game giving hin goals.  From very early on, characters tell you to do things, you have a quest log that tells you to do things.

Those are instructions for the character, not the player.  And the quest log is simply a record of those instructions.

He absolutely does need to imagine that those instructions are meant for him, because the characters who are actually giving those instructions are unaware that he exists.  He's not in the game world.  Why would he think the characters in that world are talking to him?

That's like saying that some alien reading this conversation right now would think we were addressing him.  That's nonsense.

Your statements here are definitively inaccurate. The game was developed for the player. The events that occur in the game are not for the character, they are for the player. The chain of events, that is to say the plot, is for the character and can be said to be independant of the player, the purpose of the game itself is definitively based around the idea of entertaining the player. To say otherwise is plain inaccurate.

[GehnTheGrey]

@ Rockworm503



Your Big Lebowski post gave me a very hearty laugh. Thanks for that.

[Morning808]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Perfecti0nist wrote...
Look at Dead Space 2. Yeah, it's not an RPG, but still. Isaac is voiced. He now has a personality. He doesn't act like everyone's lackey. He makes some snarky comments. He develops relationships with people. In the first game I couldn't give a damn about Isaac. Now I feel very attached to him.

Of course he has a personality and should be alive. He should be well voiced too. You yourself even write him as "he" and not "I". After all he is Isaac. Not you.

Your attachment to him is the same kind of attachment as husband and his wife. Not the kind of attachment for yourself, which is why I wouldn't surprise many wrote their supposely characters as "he/she" instead of "I". But we are talking about RPG here aren't we? If we keep defining our own main character as "he/she" then what's the purpose of roleplaying that character? Wouldn't it's much easier to enjoy storybook and/or watching cinema than trying in vain to find serious attachment with your own supposely character? 

How is it you feel yourself dull in Dragon Age: Origins is beyond me. You really need to focus and see things through your character and not from outside that dull, empty, soulless cartoon. 

Incase you got a little confused here I think is might be easier: Yes Isaac should be voice because he is not our character! We did not make him.

Ok now all I have to say is if you can only be connected to someone because they can talk then I don't know what you are thinking...Sorry I had a connection to Isaac the moment I found out why he was on that ship had was willing to fight all those Necromorphs...and then to only fine out at the end (Or if knew the secret of the chapters) that it was all invain since she killed herself before you even boarded. If you can't have a connection to someone because of they are fighting for and only by communication, to me you are missing the connection.

Plus why would someone have to talk if no one was around to talk to and everyone you did mean ended up dead later on...no point in talking to dead meat. DS2 He talked because he ended up trying to save people and I think he was a little mad to find out that they keep making Markers and that his Girlfriend kept haunting him

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rockworm503 wrote...

LOL except if the alien read this knowing full well that what was written was for his benefit. 

The player can't do that, though.  How is the player to know which in-game utterances are in-character and which are intended to break the fourth wall?

Xewaka wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Do you really think in full sentences and know word-for-word what you are going to say before you say it?

Yes. I think if what I'm going to say is what I mean to say before saying anything.

As I like to say, "If you cannot say what you mean, then you cannot mean what you say."

the_one_54321 wrote...

Your statements here are definitively inaccurate. The game was developed for the player. The events that occur in the game are not for the character, they are for the player. The chain of events, that is to say the plot, is for the character and can be said to be independant of the player, the purpose of the game itself is definitively based around the idea of entertaining the player. To say otherwise is plain inaccurate.

Entertaining the player, sure.  But the game world exists independently of the player.  The characters within the world are unaware of the player.  To permit roleplaying, the setting must be coherent.  When characters speak, to whom are they speaking?  Each other?  Or some magical being beyond reality (the player) even though none of them have any reason to believe such a thing exists?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The player can't do that, though.  How is the player to know which in-game utterances are in-character and which are intended to break the fourth wall?

In a game like DA:O none of them are intended to break the fourth wall, because none of the characters are ever aware that they are inside a game. However, all of the information is still presented specifically for the benefit of the player. In fact, in all of these games/CRPGs/whathaveyou, all information is presented for the benefit of the player regardless of how it is intended to affect the character.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Entertaining the player, sure.  But the game world exists independently of the player.  The characters within the world are unaware of the player.  To permit roleplaying, the setting must be coherent.  When characters speak, to whom are they speaking?  Each other?  Or some magical being beyond reality (the player) even though none of them have any reason to believe such a thing exists?

It does not matter to whom they are speaking. They are speaking, explicitly, for the players benefit. The whole of that supposed existence was created for the players benefit. It does not even matter if, in the game, the characters are even aware of this or not. That does not change that it is so.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 01 février 2011 - 06:27 .