406 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And this is why we disagree.  You think that because we saw someone put it in the box, and that we've been observing the box the whole time, and that we haven't seen the cat leave the box, means that we know there's a cat in the box.

It's that syllogism to which I'm objecting.

Just a minor correction: it's the standard of evidence you object to. That you think we ought to think of it as a syllogism is proof of that (because you want to think of it in terms of logical dependency).

[Sjofn]

jontepwn wrote...

Silent protagonist was all well and good in Dragon Age: Origins, but it made me having an emotional connection with my character almost non-existant. He/she would just stand there with a vacant stare on his/her face. Having a voice and showing emotions greatly enhances the experience and the emotional connection from the player. The one drawback would be less customization and choice about appearance and race and stuff like that. But clearly having a voiced character is the best approach for BioWare.

I was the exact opposite. In Dragon Age: Origins, my wardens were extensions of me. They were my character. Mine! Everything they did or said was exactly what I wanted them to do or say (although sometimes the person I was talking to reacted differently than I expected, but that's OK, because that happens in real life too.).

In the Mass Effects, Shepard is not mine. S/he is their own person. I am merely their Jiminy Cricket, whispering in the back of their mind that they should take this action rather than that action. I cannot tell you how many times I picked an option and was dismayed to hear what, exactly, Shepard thought I meant by that. And that's fine, it is nice seeing the character have facial expressions rather than placidly regarding what has just happened, but that sense of ownership of the character was utterly absent for me. Add in the fact that once I see one face using a voice, I have a really hard time with a different face, ruining my immersion even further, and the replayability plummets.


Dragon Age 2 may handle it better. I hope they do (the little icons and not being locked into PARAGON versus RENEGADE will probably go a long way). But I am not thrilled with the voiced protagonist thing, and I definitely don't hope it goes away in all games forever.

[In Exile]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Silent PC is important for role-playing when player is supposed to associate him/herself with the PC. Naturally, you're supposed to imagine PC speaking with your voice.

But that's just impossible. My voice would never say these things. I'd be sarcasm 100% of the way. In fact, one of the reasons I dislike a lack of VO is because the no VO makes it impossible for me to actually associate myself with the character.

No silent VO RPG has even remotely made room for the sarcastic extrovert.

So it's my preference that the tone of the line should be written
down, as if to remove confusion. I'd honestly consider having no
paraphrase and simply a tone icon (sort of similar to Alpha Protocol) to
be an improvement over the
unvoiced protagonist. Though I'm not the only one who thinks it and I'm
hardly the majority who believes this.

I do. But then going 70% suave and 30% professional in that game effectively caught the most important gist of the personality I would normally play if a game would let me get away with it.

There was some re-loading when (for example) a joke went too far or an option was poorly labelled, but AP actually did a good job marking your intetions: i.e. joking, mocking (there is a difference between the two), confident... etc.

Modifié par In Exile, 31 janvier 2011 - 08:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

In the real world, you can try to speak to people both ways. With the former, you just try to be as clear as possible. With the latter, you keep the conversation going, making minor corrections until by any measurable standard from your PoV it sees the other person has understood.

But the second approach doesn't work.  If you and I disagree on the meaning of some relevant word, you might speak in a way you think is clear, and I might agree with you that you were clear.  I think I understood you perfectly, and I'll tell you so if you ask.

And you'll still have failed to produce the result you wanted.  I didn't interpret your remarks as you intended, because we weren't speaking the same langauge.  But you can't know that without seeing some consequent behaviour from me, which might not be forthcoming for some time.

And worse, what if I revise my interpretation of your remarks later, after you've gone away?

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile wrote...

I don't think the problem is whether or not the cat is in the box, so much as a debate over what the precise laws of nature are (to jump into shorts's analogy for a second).

Great post.  I think you're definitely on to something there.

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Silent PC is important for role-playing when player is supposed to associate him/herself with the PC. Naturally, you're supposed to imagine PC speaking with your voice..

Even those in this thread who count themselves among silent PC supporters wouldn't universally endorse the idea that you're supposed to be playing you, or play with your own voice.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 31 janvier 2011 - 08:48 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Sitting in various idosyncratic postures is a rather major one, pacing around while another person is talking happens, there's even the incredible walking and talking at the same time trick that is very, very common.

Yes, i tend to think of these as of just slight variation of the basic "two people stay close next to each other, largely static, and talk" approach. That the background may sometimes be moving is, as you said it yourself in another spot, largely irrelevant.
 

Sure, me and my friend might sit and talk, but I might be twirling a pencil around and he might be smoking. Or he could be drinking water, or eating.

Yes, that can happen. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest this is predominant and crucial part of any conversation, though.

Most conversations I've had involve people interacting with the world physically, not standing/sitting straight as an arrow and talking.

Perhaps we view it differently, but i just don't really see "sitting in idiosyncratic posture" or walking around as any different "interacting with the world physically" than standing in the midst of that world would be. In all cases you're just being there and breathing, that's about it.

I don't know where the bold comes from, other than an attempt on your part to be pejorative.

That was mostly a reference to ME2. Some of its dialogue bordered on making me wish there was a (renegade, no doubt) interrupt along lines of "would you sit the fsck down and stay there for these five brief minutes this conversation takes, already". Attention span seems to be the most scarce resource in the future.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But the second approach doesn't work.  If you and I disagree on the meaning of some relevant word, you might speak in a way you think is clear, and I might agree with you that you were clear.  I think I understood you perfectly, and I'll tell you so if you ask.

And you'll still have failed to produce the result you wanted.  I didn't interpret your remarks as you intended, because we weren't speaking the same langauge.  But you can't know that without seeing some consequent behaviour from me, which might not be forthcoming for some time.

And worse, what if I revise my interpretation of your remarks later, after you've gone away?

But that isn't a problem. Or rather, it is a problem (in that situation, because you'll have to clarify later), but not a problem for the approach. The bold is not an issue at all; if it happens, then the issue is deal with once the behaviour comes up.

Like I said before: the problem is that you are just not comfortable with this level of uncertainity, and think any kind of system that has it is a bad system. But most people are perfectly happen to work under that kind of uncertainity.

It does work - it just doesn't work by your standard, which is a success rate of 100%, otherwise treating sucess between 99% of the time as equivalent to always being succesful 0% because you never know when the 1% failure will happen.

To answer your question: if you think I meant something different, you would clarifiy. I think that part of the problem here is that you look at coversation as a puzzle you solve based on what  I say, as opposed to effectively a negotiation to get me to do something.

Let me give you an analogy:

If you have a flat tire, the wheel will start dragging in a particular direction. You have to ''fight'' to keep the car on tract. This is what a conversation is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Hypothetical scenario, Alistair approaches me in camp to talk about cheese and the following options show up.

1. Cheese is absolutely disgusting.
2. I love cheese!
3. How about I shove that cheese down your throat?

The game is giving me the sign that the third option is aggressive, it's the way the writer intended it to be be. Though what happens when there's an option that's slightly harder to tell if it's a joke, aggressive or simply rude?

What if there was an option that you couldn't tell if it's aggressive? You thought it was a joke, you pick it and suddenly Alistair is angry with you because you just insulted him. Is that the player's fault or the writer's fault? You'd say it's the player's fault, they shouldn't play in the sandbox that they've been provided.

Actually, no.  I don't think that's a scenario where it makes sense to assign blame.  It's no one's fault.

The player made a choice he thought was in character.  That's a good decision.  Alistair reacted in a way that helps define his character.  That's simply a matter of fact in the game world.  Why is this anyone's fault?  I don't see how anything went wrong.

In Exile wrote...

Just a minor correction: it's the standard of evidence you object to. That you think we ought to think of it as a syllogism is proof of that (because you want to think of it in terms of logical dependency).

I think of everything in terms of logical dependency.

In Exile wrote...

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Silent PC is important for role-playing when player is supposed to associate him/herself with the PC. Naturally, you're supposed to imagine PC speaking with your voice.

But that's just impossible. My voice would never say these things.

For the record, I don't imagine my PC speaking with my voice - or any voice, really.  I read the dialogue option, select it, and then proceed with the knowledge that my character has conveyed the ideas contained within it.  He could be telepathically implanting the idas within the NPC's minds; I don't care, because it doesn't make any difference.

[Dave of Canada]

In Exile wrote...

There was some re-loading when (for example) a joke went too far or an option was poorly labelled, but AP actually did a good job marking your intetions: i.e. joking, mocking (there is a difference between the two), confident... etc.

Of course, no system out there is perfect. Personally, I just think that tone means more than words (as words can be mixed up with the incorrect tone), so I respect it more the tone choices that the word choices.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 janvier 2011 - 09:00 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
...

Your method of role playing has never been fully supported by video games.

As time is going on almost all "role playing games" are traveling farther away from your method of role playing rather than closer to it.

It is possible to role play (based on your assertion of what role playing is) imperfectly within the mechanics of the games that are still being presented.

This leaves you with precious few options for continuing to play these games.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Yes, i tend to think of these as of just slight variation of the basic "two people stay close next to each other, largely static, and talk" approach. That the background may sometimes be moving is, as you said it yourself in another spot, largely irrelevant.

This is getting into ''the silent PC is a souless mute'' territorry. If you think these aspects of a conversation are irrelevant, that's your perogative. But they certainly are there. And if you remove them, some people will notice that these things are missing.

A good parallel is the whole ''NPC standing still'' debate. Some people think a world is dead and sterile if the random NPCs aren't going around like real people living their lives. For some people, this is effectively a deal-breaker.

This is the same sort of thing.
 

Yes, that can happen. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest this is predominant and crucial part of any conversation, though.

I would say that it depends on the people you hang around with. In my social circle, at least, we're a bunch of fidgety enviroment interactors (with me being the worst of the bunch).

Perhaps we view it differently, but i just don't really see "sitting in idiosyncratic posture" or walking around as any different "interacting with the world physically" than standing in the midst of that world would be. In all cases you're just being there and breathing, that's about it.

Like I said: I can't convey the individual impact of these things. But they happen. If you happen to think they're irrelevant, or don't notice them, or whatever - that's your position and it's your right to hold it. But that isn't the same as dismissing as not being there.

That was mostly a reference to ME2. Some of its dialogue bordered on making me wish there was a (renegade, no doubt) interrupt along lines of "would you sit the fsck down and stay there for these five brief minutes this conversation takes, already". Attention span seems to be the most scarce resource in the future.

What did you think of the Illusive Man? All things considered, he had a bit more 'natural' set of gestures, by my take. The shuffling in his seat, the smoking, the drinking... not life-like, by any stretch, but much better than most other games.

At any rate, I think this is a pretty good illustration of what your preference is re: how you happen to be a conversation should be like.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

To answer your question: if you think I meant something different, you would clarifiy. I think that part of the problem here is that you look at coversation as a puzzle you solve based on what  I say, as opposed to effectively a negotiation to get me to do something.

Why am I trying to cajole you into doing things?  Unless you work for me, in which case I can compel you to do things, at most I might make you aware of options and have you choose among them.

I'm not going to bully you into doing something you don't want to do.

Let me give you an analogy:

If you have a flat tire, the wheel will start dragging in a particular direction. You have to ''fight'' to keep the car on tract. This is what a conversation is.

If it's that much of a struggle, it's not worth doing.

[tmp7704]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Of course, no system out there is perfect. Personally, I just think that tone means more than words (as words can be mixed up with the incorrect tone), so I respect it more the tone choices that the word choices.

One problem with AP dialogue system that messed me up more than few times was, while for the most part you'd get the choices of "bond/bauer/bourne" occasionally they'd throw in fourth option typically coded with just couple words if that, and you had no way of knowing whether that extra option would enhance the conversation with additional question or point, or just skip the whole remaining thing altogether.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If it's that much of a struggle, it's not worth doing.

So that's why you don't like pen-and-paper RPGs, then?

[Annarl]

I don't mind a voiced or silent hero. I want a well created game. The story and game play will always be more important to me. With that being said there are times in DAO where the silent hero didn't seem right...the Landsmeet always stick out to me. As gaming grows and changes in the future there will be less mute heroes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If it's that much of a struggle, it's not worth doing.

So that's why you don't like pen-and-paper RPGs, then?

I'm confused by the_one's assertion that my roleplaying approach has never been fully supprted by video games.  And I'm confused by it for a number of reasons.

First, I don't think RPGs are video games.

Second, I'm not sure what "fully supported" would actually mean here.

But third, and relevant to what you're saying, I think CRPGs have generally supported my approach far better than tabletop gaming ever did outside of old school war gaming (and I'm no grognard).  CRPGs allow the player to establish a set of motives and interests and act on them without having to explain them to people.  I can just go ahead and do it, and leave all the messy interpersonal crap to the characters themselves.

[NErWOnek]

maybe there will be an option to "disable character voiceovers" and You'll only have subtitles ? That would make both sides happy. Making subs for dialogues is a must in a game like this so there'd be no harm, right ?

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The player made a choice he thought was in character.  That's a good decision.  Alistair reacted in a way that helps define his character.  That's simply a matter of fact in the game world.  Why is this anyone's fault?  I don't see how anything went wrong.

Let me give you an alternative example to illustrate the point better:

In Alpha Protocol, you can joke around. In one interaction, a character says:

''Mr. Thorton, I have a proposal for you.'' (meaning a business proposal)

You can reply with something to the effect of:

''Sorry - but you're not really my type. I'm flattered, though''.

Snarky, by any stretch. Saying this will lose approval from that character. But losing approval isn't really a problem if you wanted to be a smartass, because that sort of danger is always present with mockery. So if you wanted to mock the character, the end result is acceptable.

What Dave is getting at isn't that there was a problem with Alistiar losing approval - it's that he seemed to lose approval for the wrong thing, that he never wanted to say.

I think of everything in terms of logical dependency.

I know. I'm just saying not everyone uses that as a standard of evidence (if it's not logically true =! true). That's what your conflict is.

For the record, I don't imagine my PC speaking with my voice - or any voice, really.  I read the dialogue option, select it, and then proceed with the knowledge that my character has conveyed the ideas contained within it.  He could be telepathically implanting the idas within the NPC's minds; I don't care, because it doesn't make any difference.

Right. I was just pointing out that while I can 100% see how silent PC might make someone feel like they have more freedom, I can't see how it could make them feel like they're in-game picking the lines, because I don't see how those lines could really ever match up with how they'd say something.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
First, I don't think RPGs are video games.
Second, I'm not sure what "fully supported" would actually mean here.

In a pnp game you can literally do whatever you want whenever you want, unless your DM refuses to keep playing with you. In a video game, no matter how free form the game is, there are always strict limitations in terms of some things that you simplly cannot do.

And if you think that RPGs are not video games then why do you keep insisting that video games strive for as perfect a role playing experience as possible? 

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Why am I trying to cajole you into doing things?  Unless you work for me, in which case I can compel you to do things, at most I might make you aware of options and have you choose among them.

I'm not going to bully you into doing something you don't want to do.

But even this involves making someone do something - in this case adopting some set of mental states or beliefs that leads to a direct change in perspective.

You're always trying to cause some change when you're talking to someone else. Whether it's behaviour or belief, it amounts to the same thing.

This is the difference. So to bring it back to dialogue, I always need to know what the goal (i.e. the intention) of the dialogue is. I always know my character's intention, but that isn't sufficient, becasue the line (and its consequeneces) are pre-deterined by the writer and I have a limited number of things I could say. Since I'm not having a dynamic conversation but rather picking between predefined options in a logic tree (basically) I need to know more of the three at a meta-game level to properly RP than I would need in real life.

If it's that much of a struggle, it's not worth doing.

It's really not that much of a struggle at all. I picking a particularly extreme example to give you an idea of the difference in reasoning, not a parallel of the difficulty involved.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Let me give you an alternative example to illustrate the point better:

In Alpha Protocol, you can joke around. In one interaction, a character says:

''Mr. Thorton, I have a proposal for you.'' (meaning a business proposal)

You can reply with something to the effect of:

''Sorry - but you're not really my type. I'm flattered, though''.

Snarky, by any stretch. Saying this will lose approval from that character. But losing approval isn't really a problem if you wanted to be a smartass, because that sort of danger is always present with mockery. So if you wanted to mock the character, the end result is acceptable.

What Dave is getting at isn't that there was a problem with Alistiar losing approval - it's that he seemed to lose approval for the wrong thing, that he never wanted to say.

Except that's not what happened.  Dave lost approval for saying the thing he wanted to say.  He didn't expect to lose approval, and he would rather circumstances were such that saying what he did wouldn't cause him to lose approval, but he couldn't have known that in advance.

I still don't see the problem.  Dave can't "seem to lose approval for the wrong thing" because the wrong thing never happened. 

I know. I'm just saying not everyone uses that as a standard of evidence (if it's not logically true =! true). That's what your conflict is.

Trying to explain to people how truth works is a large part of why I'm here.

Right. I was just pointing out that while I can 100% see how silent PC might make someone feel like they have more freedom, I can't see how it could make them feel like they're in-game picking the lines, because I don't see how those lines could really ever match up with how they'd say something.

I think you misunderstood.  Remember, these players read the lines first, then choose which one they want to select, and then they customise the line by adding tone.

They're not imagining what they want to say first and them picking a dialogue line to match.  Of course that wouldn't work.

[Dhiro]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If it's that much of a struggle, it's not worth doing.

So that's why you don't like pen-and-paper RPGs, then?

First, I don't think RPGs are video games.

Why? :<

Modifié par Dhiro, 31 janvier 2011 - 09:27 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

This is getting into ''the silent PC is a souless mute'' territorry. If you think these aspects of a conversation are irrelevant, that's your perogative. But they certainly are there. And if you remove them, some people will notice that these things are missing.

Thinking of it, i probably didn't do very good work describing my view on the matter. It isn't that i think these aspects are irrelevant, but rather that i view a conversation with people standing and talking to be just as normal as these other examples (because all of them do happen in normal world)  So because of this, i don't perceive the conversations like they happen in DAO to be missing anything.

On the other hand, if the point is rather that's what missing is a variety in setups for the conversations (i.e. that there's few of them where people aren't standing and talking)  and that there should be more instances where someone is sitting, or one person is pacing around, or there's the whole walk and talk deal going... then yes, i can see that. It doesn't bother me personally as much because i probably just filter it out as result of limited resources spent on making the game. But if such variety was added then i wouldn't exactly mind it, either.

I would say that it depends on the people you hang around with. In my social circle, at least, we're a bunch of fidgety enviroment interactors (with me being the worst of the bunch).

Hmm do you think this could be why you notice the lack of it more? I.e. it possibly stands out more for you because it goes against what you're used to do yourself.

What did you think of the Illusive Man? All things considered, he had a bit more 'natural' set of gestures, by my take. The shuffling in his seat, the smoking, the drinking... not life-like, by any stretch, but much better than most other games.

He seemed a bit theatrical, but that's i think mostly to stress the point how he's man in charge/control type and some of these gestures were specifically made in a way to fit that. I didn't mind it in any case and yes, can see how it could make him appear like more "real" character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

NErWOnek wrote...

maybe there will be an option to "disable character voiceovers" and You'll only have subtitles ?

We've been explicitly told that we're not getting that.

the_one_54321 wrote...

In a pnp game you can literally do whatever you want whenever you want, unless your DM refuses to keep playing with you.

I don't think that's true.  A PnP roleplayer is limited by his own imagination, and his ability to roleplay in group.  You need to hink up what it is you want to do, and you have to express that desire in a way the people around you understand.

A CRPG aids your imagination by offering suggestions, and implements your choices automatically.

In a video game, no matter how free form the game is, there are always strict limitations in terms of some things that you simplly cannot do.

True.  CRPGs certainly constrain roleplaying in ways that tabletop games don't, but the reverse is also true.

And if you think that RPGs are not video games then why do you keep insisting that video games strive for as perfect a role playing experience as possible?

What?  Clearly I'm not.  That doesn't make any sense at all.

[The Gentle Ben]

Dave of Canada wrote...
What if there was an option that you couldn't tell if it's aggressive? You thought it was a joke, you pick it and suddenly Alistair is angry with you because you just insulted him. Is that the player's fault or the writer's fault? You'd say it's the player's fault, they shouldn't play in the sandbox that they've been provided.

It is not the player's fault for not reading the line in an intended tone, nor is it the writer's fault because writers cannot make it so every line in the game can be read in every tone.

Odd. I'm a writer and would certainly consider that outcome a failure on my part (If I wanted that particular dialogue option included, I would have considered it my responsibility to push for joke[text] just as lie[text] was used). There are limits as to what can fairly be expected, of course, but (as I would approach the challenge) when providing options for dialogue, clarity of intent is perhaps the most essential component followed by providing a reasonably representational range of probable choices and rationales.

Both of these are certainly achievable by DA2's adopted system (and made easier by the intent icons), but the onus for its success or failure (to my mind) still falls almost entirely on the writers to anticipate, create and convey this range of reasonably conceivable statements/responses with the optimally achievable clarity of intent, and that task (conveying both intent and rationale) is rendered far more difficult by the limiting presentational component of the paraphrase system. For my part, I think failure to anticipate reasonable alternate rationales, as opposed to conveying tone, is where the writers are most likely to get into trouble (leading the character to justify a position with logic contrary to that held by the player). By adopting this system, Bioware is essentially challenging their writers. I suspect they are up to it, but it remains to be seen (and each will undoubtably judge on their own criteria).

Modifié par The Gentle Ben, 31 janvier 2011 - 09:51 .