406 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

But it does, because the player would then need to be able to tell which was which.

When the characters are speaking about something that needs to be done, are they speaking to the player telling him what to do, or are they speaking to the player's character (and thus indirectly giving the player options, rather than an instruction)?

The player can't act based on these utterances without being able to discern the difference between those two things.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But it does, because the player would then need to be able to tell which was which.

It doesn't and you need do no such thing. I made an edit to the last post that addresses this.

[Morning808]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But it does, because the player would then need to be able to tell which was which.

It doesn't and you need do no such thing. I made an edit to the last post that addresses this.

Remember people don't like playing in the dark...they tend to hate not being told what to do, I like being left in the dark as long has you have to run from something and find your way out

Modifié par Morning808, 01 février 2011 - 06:36 .

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

But it does, because the player would then need to be able to tell which was which.

When the characters are speaking about something that needs to be done, are they speaking to the player telling him what to do, or are they speaking to the player's character (and thus indirectly giving the player options, rather than an instruction)?

The player can't act based on these utterances without being able to discern the difference between those two things.

While the two can be potentially separated, they are effectively the same since I am vicariously acting for my character.  I determine everything he does by what he is told, because what he is told is vicariously meant for me in addition to any fourth-wall breaking instructions.  Since I and only I can control my player character, then the instructions are wasted on the character and therefore designed with me in mind. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But it does, because the player would then need to be able to tell which was which.

It doesn't and you need do no such thing. I made an edit to the last post that addresses this.

Your edit makes no difference.

If the character is to make decisions based on what he knows, then what the player knows makes no difference at all.  Even if the game is able to tell the player what to do, the character need not act on it because he might not think it's a good idea.

All your new proposal does is make the game fail in the eyes of the player.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

While the two can be potentially separated, they are effectively the same since I am vicariously acting for my character.  I determine everything he does by what he is told, because what he is told is vicariously meant for me in addition to any fourth-wall breaking instructions.  Since I and only I can control my player character, then the instructions are wasted on the character and therefore designed with me in mind.

That would depend what you're doing as player, though.  Are you following instructions and playing the game, or are you trying to roleplay a character (who is unaware that he's in a game, and thus unable to follow that game's instructions)?

Game instructions are metagame knowledge, and thus cannot impact roleplaying at all.

[Giggles_Manically]

I think its not a relic so much as an older style.



To date no voiced hero in an RPG has been very relatable to me and feels very separate from me.

Im not Shepard, I am watching Shepard.



I think if it was well done though that a VOed PC would be okay.

It has not be done very well though.



Here is hoping for DA2 though.

[clockblock]

Faust1979 wrote...

 It's 2011 a mute hero was fine in the 80s and 90s when games and hardware didn't have a lot of power. But it's 2011 now. It's time to leave the mute hero in the past. Games need to grow and change not stay in the past. Dragon Age is one fun game but the mute hero is a relic of the past. 

You do realize that the only reason why it is like that is because we can choose our characters name? At least that is how I see it. It would take entirely too much effort to get the game to decide how to pronouce the name or whatever. I personally like the silent heros.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

While the two can be potentially separated, they are effectively the same since I am vicariously acting for my character.  I determine everything he does by what he is told, because what he is told is vicariously meant for me in addition to any fourth-wall breaking instructions.  Since I and only I can control my player character, then the instructions are wasted on the character and therefore designed with me in mind.

That would depend what you're doing as player, though.  Are you following instructions and playing the game, or are you trying to roleplay a character (who is unaware that he's in a game, and thus unable to follow that game's instructions)?

Game instructions are metagame knowledge, and thus cannot impact roleplaying at all.

But just because one who is completely roleplaying should not take into account metagame information when making decisions does not remove the existance of the player or the goal.  Even if I take no metagame info into account I am constantly being pushed within he game towards a certain goal.  I can deviate from that or just wander around not doing it, but if I elect not to pusue that goal then eventually I will be able to do nothing else and instead be suspended in a static gameworld until I progress. 

Even the dialogue options will inevitably lead the character with no choice but to agree to the goal.  Take a few early conversations.  In any origin when Duncan recruits you to the Grey Wardens, you can "say"  no, insult him, be resistant but at that point you will be forced into joining, and there will be a dialogue option spoken by your character that begrudgingly agrees and the game cuts to Ostagar. 

Or take the conversation with Flemeth after she saves you from Ostagar and everyone decides to gather the armies and stop the Blight.  You can protest the idea, reject it, say you will flee, but eventually you will be forced to do so with your character begrudgingly agreeing through a dialogue option and the character will never again have an option to express desire to flee and not fight the Blight let alone carrry out this desire.

The metagame constantly encroaches on the actual game.  What if my goal is to betray the Wardens at Ostagar and wait in camp instead of lighting the beacon until the Darkspawn overrun the Wardens?  Well no matter how long I wait around in camp the Darkspawn will not attack until I move towards the goal that the game wants me to accomplish.  Or if I wait around after the attack is triggered with the same motive in mind, the Wardens will not be overrun no matter how long I wait.

The metagame shapes the game itself no matter what we try and the only way to deviate completely is to stop playing at a certain point in a roleplaying excercise.  RPGs are therefore in this case, still videogames.

[Killjoy Cutter]

In Exile wrote...

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. 

Are you playing the RPG or watching a movie?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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. 

Are you playing the RPG or watching a movie?

That's always been my response.

Why do we need to see the PC express emotuion in order to believe that it's happening?  Do you need to see yourself express emotion to believe that you're doing it?

[Fishy]

Emissary of the Dark wrote...

Its fine in an action game like god of war or gears of war but in an RPG it is unacceptable

What about Half-life?

Now if they ever VOICE Gordon Freeman .. I see this happenning again.

Modifié par Suprez30, 01 février 2011 - 07:52 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Your edit makes no difference.

If the character is to make decisions based on what he knows, then what the player knows makes no difference at all.  Even if the game is able to tell the player what to do, the character need not act on it because he might not think it's a good idea.

All your new proposal does is make the game fail in the eyes of the player.

It would make the game fail in the eyes of you. You're the one jumping the realities now. Keep separate that which is in the game from that which is outside the game. The game world was imagined and developed outside the game world and with the express purpose of entertaining the player. Furthermore with the express purpose of giving the player a start, a middle, and an end of the game, with the end game being the final goal of the game itself.

The existence of a hypothetical world inside the game with its own trials, tribulations, and presented goals in no way affects anything stated above. What is stated above would still be true even if the character in the game was never given any particular goal to fulfil. It just so happens that in DA:O (and in most games, actually) the goal in the plot of the game world is precisely what leads you to the goal of the end game in the real world.

[Archereon]

The big advantage of the unvoiced PC is immersion. This is why games like Half-life leave their protagonists silent despite the fact that everyone else is voiced. It allows you the player to fill in the character's motives and the emotional response. While voiced PCs can give a wide variety of emotional responses, expecting the game to give you an option for each and every one of the emotions you might be feeling. The "motives" problem is less severe, but it's something I've seen in Mass Effect quite a bit. Shepard has an annoying tendency to voice, or imply through social cues, what his motives are for doing or saying something, which often will differ from the motives the player projects onto the character. If Bioware were to show us word for word what the character was going to say, this issue would be much easier to avoid, but they insist on the paraphrase system.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The existence of a hypothetical world inside the game with its own trials, tribulations, and presented goals in no way affects anything stated above. What is stated above would still be true even if the character in the game was never given any particular goal to fulfil. It just so happens that in DA:O (and in most games, actually) the goal in the plot of the game world is precisely what leads you to the goal of the end game in the real world.

But the player can't reliably reach, or even attempt to reach, that goal without breaking character.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But the player can't reliably reach, or even attempt to reach, that goal without breaking character.

Of course the player can. The player's only goal is to finish the game and (hopefully) enjoy it. It just so happens that in most games finishing is linked to the events that happen in the game world.

[hawat333]

Faust1979 wrote...

 It's 2011 a mute hero was fine in the 80s and 90s when games and hardware didn't have a lot of power. But it's 2011 now. It's time to leave the mute hero in the past. Games need to grow and change not stay in the past. Dragon Age is one fun game but the mute hero is a relic of the past. 

Let me explain how it works.
Every game to be made have a budget. (We could examine time, animation, etc, etc, I just took it for the sake of the example)
They distribute a X value to the sound/dialogue/studio department.
If the hero talks a lot, let's say it's X/3 assigned to him.

So it means 50% more dialogues in the game if we have a mute hero. That's a serious setback for an RPG, as story is often told by dialogues. We will get a world that could'be richer with a mute hero.

Apart from that, it's a type of narraitve. True first-person narrative can only be delivered with a mute hero. If the hero has a voice, it means pre-defined character which we can guide through the game and mark the decisions for him/her. It's called third-person narrative.

They are two different things.

So no, good sir, it's 2011, but even in 2500 if RPG will exist, there will be place for the mute hero.
In any hardcore RPG.

As for DA2 I've made peace with the voiced one (although I regret that it discards the opportunity to play as a dwarf or an elf for example, who wants to play a human in a fantasy rpg anyways?), but in the RPG genre as a whole Mutuspocus, the infamous wizard, Ser Mute of the Speechless, the clumsy, fat knight and Mutina, the Elven Archer will always play a role. At least as long as hardcore RPG exist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Of course the player can. The player's only goal is to finish the game and (hopefully) enjoy it.

That's what I've been trying to get you to say.

If this is true, then the player's goal doesn't include roleplaying.  So if roleplaying is essential to the player's enjoyment, then the game fails.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Of course the player can. The player's only goal is to finish the game and (hopefully) enjoy it.

That's what I've been trying to get you to say.

If this is true, then the player's goal doesn't include roleplaying.  So if roleplaying is essential to the player's enjoyment, then the game fails.

Notice that I included the word "hopefully."

In your case the initial goal of playing and finishing a game is ignored entirely. Your only goal is enjoyment. But the thing is that this is what you have imposed upon the game, not the other way around. The goal of the game is for you to play it and complete it. That's all.

[Morrigans God son]

I like mute.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Of course the player can. The player's only goal is to finish the game and (hopefully) enjoy it.

That's what I've been trying to get you to say.

If this is true, then the player's goal doesn't include roleplaying.  So if roleplaying is essential to the player's enjoyment, then the game fails.

Notice that I included the word "hopefully."

In your case the initial goal of playing and finishing a game is ignored entirely. Your only goal is enjoyment. But the thing is that this is what you have imposed upon the game, not the other way around. The goal of the game is for you to play it and complete it. That's all.

And I disagree.  It's a roleplaying game; the primary gameplay objective is and always will be roleplaying.  That doesn't get to change.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And I disagree.  It's a roleplaying game; the primary gameplay objective is and always will be roleplaying.  That doesn't get to change.

Then maybe it's not an RPG, based on your views? Maybe there are no RPGs, based on your views?

edit: to add on to this and make it less pedanitic, your argument is getting circular. You say it is an RPG there for it has these qualities. Then you say it has these qualities therefore it is an RPG. I'm oversimplifying but the point I'd like to make is that you need to reexamine your application of axioms. Perhaps one or some of the axioms you are applying should not be applied.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 01 février 2011 - 10:54 .

[Sabariel]

I'd rather my protagonist be mute so I can give them whatever voice I want in my head, but apparently I'm just a dinosaur

[LdyShayna]

Sabariel wrote...

I'd rather my protagonist be mute so I can give them whatever voice I want in my head, but apparently I'm just a dinosaur

Heh.

*RAWR*

Color me amused by the initial post in this thread.  Game designers have been makign games with full voice overs since the advent of CDs.  I've seen this argument constantly.  Singleplayer games are a thing of the past now that dial-up\\The Internet\\widely available broadband\\future tech I is here!  Games with rules only existed because the technology wasn't there for action games, despite the fact that rules based and action games have existed side by side since they were created!  The simple fact is there are many preferences among the game-playing audience.  THAT'S why there continued to be different kinds of games made: to appeal to people with different gaming preferences.

Because you prefer something does not make it the future of all things.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Sabariel wrote...

I'd rather my protagonist be mute so I can give them whatever voice I want in my head, but apparently I'm just a dinosaur

Don't worry, the Krielasaurus is here too.