406 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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?

The game you're describing is absolutely not a roleplaying game.

As long as people call somthing a roleplaying game, I'm going to show up and demand roleplaying.

edit: to add on to this and make it less pedanitic, your argument is getting circular.

It's not circular.  People just keep trying to refute different ends of the biconditional, so I have to run the logic in both directions.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The game you're describing is absolutely not a roleplaying game.

The game I'm describing is DA:O. You may advance things from that point.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The game you're describing is absolutely not a roleplaying game.

The game I'm describing is DA:O. You may advance things from that point.

But that's not true.  DAO didn't do the things you claim it did.  The intent you describe didn't exist within the game.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The game you're describing is absolutely not a roleplaying game.

The game I'm describing is DA:O. You may advance things from that point.

But that's not true.  DAO didn't do the things you claim it did.  The intent you describe didn't exist within the game.

Define "within." I believe what I said was that the end game goal existed outside of the game, intended for the player.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Forget within. I don't think that goal does actually exist unless the player decides it does. There's no objective reality for that goal.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Forget within. I don't think that goal does actually exist unless the player decides it does. There's no objective reality for that goal.

But that's why the game was created to begin with. You are free to ignore that goal. And in your case you'll enjoy the game much more if you ignore it. But the goal does still exist.

[Trixsy]

I like both, and can see the value of both, but for the most part I prefer a voiced character. True with origins if I got bored sometimes I would read stuff off and be my own VO, just to take away some of the blank detachment of my character - but that was the main drawback. The characters were like catatonic shells... I wanted them to show expression, REACT in some way, even if it was just their expressions matching an intended emotion for certain bits of text, or having text include actions that you would choose from... for example: "I can't let you do that..." (Warden glares and points weapon at the thief).

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Forget within. I don't think that goal does actually exist unless the player decides it does. There's no objective reality for that goal.

But that's why the game was created to begin with. You are free to ignore that goal. And in your case you'll enjoy the game much more if you ignore it. But the goal does still exist.

No, the game was created to entertain the player.  I would argue it aims to entertain the player specifically through roleplaying, which would preclude the goal you decribe, but even if we don't presuppose that it's a roleplaying game I still don't see how that goal of completion you describe actually exists for the player.

I can't ignore it if it's not there.

[steve1945]

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. 

Your opinion=/= my opinion.

Mute heroes will always be superior. The past is good. The future is mediocrity

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Morning808 wrote...
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

I understand you already admit Dead Space 2 is not RPG. I'm using Isaac as the example because, IMO, you are confused of you what you expect from a RPG game.

Try playing some decent MMORPG titles. Runescape or Perfect World for example. Everyone there is mute, share common appearances but different clothing ( due to limited choices and customization ) and most important of all, everyone seem emotionless. Even the NPCS on those worlds are mute and no facial expression. You don't necessary have to grind your character to maximum level. Just stay inside the world and interact with everyone including with the NPCs. Don't worry. There are millions of worldwide real players behind Runescape or Perfect World's cartoons/avatar. They know exactly what they're doing. They don't hire Isaac or Commander Shepard as their representatives. They don't direct other actors to play their cartoons. They don't need real life perfect actors. They are the actors and cartoons themselves.
 
Perhaps you'll gain different kind of gaming experience and interaction from there. But that's the main point is. To be your own character, to breath the air of fantasy world and not just staring your monitor screen. Try not to direct perfect life actors to play your game. Become the actor yourself.

Maybe then you'll see the benefit of silent world and what RPG is truly about. 

Don't just lead the Spartan.
Become the Spartan.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 02 février 2011 - 02:30 .

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Forget within. I don't think that goal does actually exist unless the player decides it does. There's no objective reality for that goal.

But that's why the game was created to begin with. You are free to ignore that goal. And in your case you'll enjoy the game much more if you ignore it. But the goal does still exist.

No, the game was created to entertain the player.  I would argue it aims to entertain the player specifically through roleplaying, which would preclude the goal you decribe, but even if we don't presuppose that it's a roleplaying game I still don't see how that goal of completion you describe actually exists for the player.

I can't ignore it if it's not there.

Well now you've simply disproved your own point.

If you look at the way the game prods you in certain directions(I went into this in more detail in my last post on the previous page, won't restate uit here, too long) then you have to conclude that the game, or developer vicariously, clearly wants you as the player to do something specific in certain situations and build towards a goal which they have set.

Think of the dev like a DungeonMaster, they define the plot, events, and supplementary rules of the game.  As the player, it is your job to roleplay through the situation you have been given.  ANd if you want to deviate from the goal assigned, then the developer(like a good DM) will gently or sometimes not so gently prod you towards what they intend. 

Take the Grey Warden recruitment example I gave on the previous page, no matter what you say in that conversation, you will be recruited and the plot will progress as the devloper has intended.  Much like in a table-top game if I do something to deviate then the DM might just say "No you can't do that."  The only difference is that the developer constrains you through the actual infrastructure of the game, it will not let you buck key plot points nor let you progress along the main plot line in a way they do not intend(while still leaving room for decisions of course).

[Ponendus]

I agree with the OP. Things are moving in that direction, and there's little point trying to stop the motion of the ocean.



Having said that, I can see why people have difficulty letting go of the mute hero. People hold their voices as sacred, and when a different voice is provided, it can ruin the immersion, particularly for a roleplayer.



Although the devs have said every time someone suggests a toggle a puppy dies, in this case I think it would be nice for the RP's out there.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

JrayM16 wrote...
Think of the dev like a DungeonMaster, they define the plot, events, and supplementary rules of the game.  As the player, it is your job to roleplay through the situation you have been given.  ANd if you want to deviate from the goal assigned, then the developer(like a good DM) will gently or sometimes not so gently prod you towards what they intend. 

Take the Grey Warden recruitment example I gave on the previous page, no matter what you say in that conversation, you will be recruited and the plot will progress as the devloper has intended.  Much like in a table-top game if I do something to deviate then the DM might just say "No you can't do that."  The only difference is that the developer constrains you through the actual infrastructure of the game, it will not let you buck key plot points nor let you progress along the main plot line in a way they do not intend(while still leaving room for decisions of course).

You see... that's the main disadvantages of plot driven RPG as oppose to sandbox RPG like TES. But I have come to realize that some people cannot wander "aimlessly". They need some guidance. Too much guidance, actually. But, Neverwinter Night, Baldur Gate and Dragon Age deserve their own identity, I guess.  We can't have all the sandbox RPGs around now. 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Ponendus wrote...
I agree with the OP. Things are moving in that direction, and there's little point trying to stop the motion of the ocean.

I don't know about the motion of the ocean for single player RPG, but I can see MMORPGs remain popular despite all of them are populated by mute soulless emotionless cartoons ( which never become the issue for those players including myself ). If single player RPG really that bad in future, I'll switch back to MMOPRG, I guess, though I hate to grind 24/7 to stay on top. I've done that after Neverwinter Night 2 ( thanks to Dragon Age: Origins I am returning to Single Player RPG once again ). So I'm well prepared if all Single Player RPG turn out to be the classic third person perspective adventure games in future. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 02 février 2011 - 03:38 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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 this requires a contradiction. Most, if not all, role-playing adventures have some 'goal' in mind. Indeed, this is how we are able to label them 'adventures'; the DM creates a plot hook, villain, and a situation which the players are required to play out. They may have some leeway in how they go about that adventure, but they must go through the experience all the same.

In cRPGs, role-playing follows the provided experience, not the other way around. Even if a character I have created may not particularly care about an adventure, for the sake of the DM, the rest of the party, and my own pleasure I will metagame to provide some explanation as to why I have taken this course of action. You (the player) are required to kill the Archdemon. What motivation you choose to imagine in taking this action is up to you, but does not neglect the fact that you have killed the Archdemon. The player is forced to adapt his character to events, not the other way around.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 février 2011 - 04:21 .

[TDelamay]

I personally prefer the Dragon age origin silent protagonist. Having a silent character allowed me to fill in the voice acting with what I thought suited my character best. On my second playthrough, when I played as a shy elf rogue, I created a whole different dialogue for my character. I imagined the voice differently than if I had created a tough ruthless hero.



In Dragon age 2, since your hero has a voice, it's hard to imagine anything else than what your hero is. If it's anything like Mass effect 2, it won't give me the urge to replay the game, because when I realize that my character has the exact same voice, it starts feeling like I'm replaying the same character over again.



For me, a voiced protagonist removes the urge to replay the game differently.

[In Exile]

[quote]TheMadCat wrote...
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.[/quote]

That's fair.

[qupte]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.  [/quote]

We were talking about emotional involvement with the PC. You offered first-person as a way to avoid the problem of feeling the PC is dead and empty. What I am trying to tell you is that this is not the case at all, for some of us who feel this way.

[quote]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.  [/quote]

But what I am trying to tell you is that this very thing is subjective. I don't think the experience can be personal without it being cinematic. This is what I always rally against in these silent VO vs. PC VO debates. I am outright hostile to the idea that the things that you suggest improve as opposed to decrease our connection with the PC.

[quote]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. [/quote]

You claimed you could avoid the problem of an emotionally dead PC with silent VO by adding first-person. I am telling you that this is not possible.

[In Exile]

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.

How do you keep up with the conversation? If you want to say something that is the equivalent of a paragraph, such a thing is impossible to keep in memory; it just outright violates the # of terms we can manipulate simultaneously in working memory. Do you just not say a lot?

[In Exile]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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? 

I am talking about playing the character, which is like being the actor. Your role is up to you to a degree, but you are always bound by the script and the director. This is the kind of bounded experience I think roleplay is.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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?

We need to see how the PC expresses the emotion to understand the NPC reaction to it. To make sense of the NPC reaction, we have to see what the NPC reacts to.

To address your point, I always "see" myself express an emotion insofar as I know what I want to do, and then I can "see" myself doing it insofar as I can hear what I say and "feel" how I'm saying it (i.e. if I'm frowning or smiling). This is all feedback I get when I talk.

It's very possible to have something "come out wrong" i.e. not be said as intended. Lots of reasons for this. You can immediately correct in the real world.

An RPG is not the real world. You cannot correct misunderstandings. You cannot dynamically interact with the world. You just choose between scripted paths; that choice requires information different than the real world because actions that are possible in the real world (e.g. correcting a misunderstanding) are impossible in the game world, and so we need a different kind of information to make sense of it.

Comparing it to the real world is false equivalence. Meta-game information is required (and an alternate presentation) to make up for the weakness in what the game can present versus what reality would.

Modifié par In Exile, 02 février 2011 - 06:07 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

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.

How do you keep up with the conversation? If you want to say something that is the equivalent of a paragraph, such a thing is impossible to keep in memory; it just outright violates the # of terms we can manipulate simultaneously in working memory. Do you just not say a lot?

Gonna get a little off-tangent here, but in DAO at least things you can say are generally limited to single sentence (since there's something like 65 char limit per line)  This is well within limits of forming it completely in memory beforehand, i think?

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Gonna get a little off-tangent here, but in DAO at least things you can say are generally limited to single sentence (since there's something like 65 char limit per line)  This is well within limits of forming it completely in memory beforehand, i think?

As a psychological concept, WM capacity is 7 unique "things" +/-2. This is a complicated clasificatory thing.

But essentially, here is an example:

"Today we ought to head to the store."

Is something that could push the WM capacity for many people if they try to focus on each word as a separate and manipulable object. You can keep a lot more than this in memory, but you are actually encoding it in a different way and aren't shifting in words in/out.

DA:O doesn't have this problem per se because the statements are short. But I wasn't asking about DA:O. I was asking about how people actually speak in the real world.

An example of this is everything I wrote above: I didn't actually "plan" this out. I just wrote essentially what came to mind on the topic; as if I was speaking to you, essentially.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

DA:O doesn't have this problem per se because the statements are short. But I wasn't asking about DA:O. I was asking about how people actually speak in the real world.

Yeah, i was just under impression this started from whether it's the "things spelt out exactly like they'll be said" or "rough paraphrase + intent" that's more natural model for holding a conversation in game and then evolved into a "just how exactly you do your conversations in RL" ... so was sort of bringing it back to where it started.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote..
Yeah, i was just under impression this started from whether it's the "things spelt out exactly like they'll be said" or "rough paraphrase + intent" that's more natural model for holding a conversation in game and then evolved into a "just how exactly you do your conversations in RL" ... so was sort of bringing it back to where it started.

It did. Part of my problem with non-VO, though, is this 65 character limit. The PC speaks rarely, and I do not design characters like that.

It is part of the essential tension. Silent VO is actively inhibiting the kind of characters I want - people who dominate the conversation, who take action in dramatic moments, who make the rousing speech, etc. In DA:O, the PC did none of these things. I don't object to silent VO per se, but rather to the set of features that seem tied to VO.

My big issue in general with Silent VO is that it is weird and dissonant to hear everyone speak but the PC, but I would not mind that if all the other features that I dislike that come packaged with silent VO are removed and the features I do like are added instead.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

How do you keep up with the conversation? If you want to say something that is the equivalent of a paragraph, such a thing is impossible to keep in memory; it just outright violates the # of terms we can manipulate simultaneously in working memory. Do you just not say a lot?

I'm not speaking for Xewaka, but I both don't speak a lot (I mostly listen, and respond only when necessary), but I also construct much longer responses than you describe.  They do tend to be single sentences, but they're usually quite long, with multiple interjections.  After assembling them, I go over them in my mind to find their rhythm, which allows me to memorise them.

You can learn song lyrics, right?  There's a lot more than 7 words in a song.