992 réponses à ce sujet

[Mordaedil]

Saibh wrote...

For all intents and purposes you "modded" the game. You simply did so in your head, instead of altering code. It'd be like claiming you never defeated the Archdemon, and that that was a figment of your Warden's imagination. Fine and dandy, but you're contradicting the story they want to tell. The only person accountable for that is you.

I thought the point of any and all RPG's to be to tell your own story. But then again, I actually do roleplaying.

[Nomen Mendax]

Saibh wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

That's a really depressing post.  Firstly you claim that Sylvius' personal experience of playing the game is wrong, which seems incredibly condescending.  Actually, you really seem to be making Sylvius' point for him.  Your "clarifying and consolidating" is reducing people's ability to roleplay within the game.  

Frankly I think we should be commending Sylvius for his ability to fit some of the cooperative storytelling of PnP into a CRPG.  Instead you seem to be saying "too bad, its not what the writer wanted, and we should be playing their story rather than trying to make our own".

He's not wrong but he's definitely not right. He's playing his illusion of the game, and he's been lucky that it wasn't interfered with in DAO. But trying to say that the writer's are taking something away because they're now telling you how Hawke is intending what he says is silly. There was only your illusion of how it was said. They have taken nothing away but your illusion.

If you prefer your illusion, again, that's fine. But it's never anything that you actually had. If they removed choice altogether, I can see complaints: you always had some amount of choice.

But I don't think it is silly.  To be clear, I didn't do what Sylvius did in terms of RPing when using the conversation interface but I'm impressed by his ability to do it.  I also think people talking about illusions is silly, the RP parts of the game are all personal experiences so to say that someone's personal experience is wrong or invalid because it wasn't intended by the developers seems asinine.

The way people experience any art form varies enormously, just because my reaction to a novel, or a film or a TV show wasn't what was intended by the writer or director doesn't make it any less valid.

To get back to Sylvius' point, in clarifying intent in the way they have they are preventing him from experiencing the game how he wants to, you don't care (which is fine) but that doesn't make him wrong.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 24 février 2011 - 07:59 .

[falconlord5]

Mordaedil wrote...

Saibh wrote...

For all intents and purposes you "modded" the game. You simply did so in your head, instead of altering code. It'd be like claiming you never defeated the Archdemon, and that that was a figment of your Warden's imagination. Fine and dandy, but you're contradicting the story they want to tell. The only person accountable for that is you.

I thought the point of any and all RPG's to be to tell your own story. But then again, I actually do roleplaying.

In a CRPG, the purpose is to play a character within a narrative created by someone else.

And please don't insinuate that what we do is not roleplaying. As another poster pointed out, it is quite offensive.

[Melness]

BobSmith101 wrote...
The bad thing is, that you get really bad character development under this system. Because the character is required to not be too much of any one thing.

You mean, an agressive/pragmatic/happy/sarcastic/stupid/emotive person is necessarily always agressive/pragmatic/happy/sarcastic/stupid/emotive?

[Bryy_Miller]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
David never responded to my praise. Maybe DA2 is why.

Slyvius, you're not actually saying the David Gaider was required to respond to you, are you?

[Sylvius the Mad]

falconlord5 wrote...

When it comes to a subjective experience? No, because the subjective nature of that truth forces the truth to have degrees.

I'm not talking about a subjective experience.  I'm talking about the verifiable claim that the dialogue options in the game were no more than text.

[nicolom]

The-Sapient wrote...

I, for one, strongly prefer the new system over the old. I find it far more immersive.

I also like that I can read all the text in this thread without any indicators of tone. This way I can role play that everyone who disagrees with me is using a voice filled with uncertainty, sarcasm, or plain stupidity.

I nominate this for post of the year.

[Saibh]

Mordaedil wrote...

Saibh wrote...

For all intents and purposes you "modded" the game. You simply did so in your head, instead of altering code. It'd be like claiming you never defeated the Archdemon, and that that was a figment of your Warden's imagination. Fine and dandy, but you're contradicting the story they want to tell. The only person accountable for that is you.

I thought the point of any and all RPG's to be to tell your own story. But then again, I actually do roleplaying.

Oooooh, you threw down the gauntleeeeeeet!

It's a video game first, and a roleplaying game second. If you want to pretend that the entire point of the game is to make whatever character you desire, then you shouldn't be playing games. You will always have limitations. That your illusion about these limitations did not interfere with the final product of their game doesn't change the fact that the devs intended those limitations to always be there, and you moved the goalposts around to pretend they didn't.

They set perimeters. Not you.

Modifié par Saibh, 24 février 2011 - 08:02 .

[Melness]

nicolom wrote...

The-Sapient wrote...

I, for one, strongly prefer the new system over the old. I find it far more immersive.

I also like that I can read all the text in this thread without any indicators of tone. This way I can role play that everyone who disagrees with me is using a voice filled with uncertainty, sarcasm, or plain stupidity.

I nominate this for post of the year.

+1

[Sylvius the Mad]

Melness wrote...

Filling those gaps is what the wheel and its intent images intend to do and, sincerely, they are quite efficient in this regard.

I don't want them filled in by the game.  I want to fill those in myself - that way I can play different characters that are guaranteed to be interesting to me.

If I only get to play the character BioWare designs, then that character might not be someone I enjoy playing.

Both the DA:O and the DA:2 systems had their problems and arguable advantages, but the latter can evolve.

When DA2's system offers me everything DAO's system did, then I'll be happy with it.

[AkiKishi]

Melness wrote...

You mean, an agressive/pragmatic/happy/sarcastic/stupid/emotive person is necessarily always agressive/pragmatic/happy/sarcastic/stupid/emotive?

No.

[falconlord5]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

falconlord5 wrote...

When it comes to a subjective experience? No, because the subjective nature of that truth forces the truth to have degrees.

I'm not talking about a subjective experience.  I'm talking about the verifiable claim that the dialogue options in the game were no more than text.

Actually, you are. How you personally respond to that text, is entirely subjective. Filling in gaps, reacting to it as the writers intended, whatever. That's all pure subjectivity.

We all know that the text (or VO dialogue) is just that, and nothing more. What you add, or choose to take away, is your business, and nobody elses.

[JohnstonMR]

Galad22 wrote...

JohnstonMR wrote...

You assume that because I recognize the limited nature of computer roleplaying, I don't somewhat live in the character's head.  That would be an incorrect assumption.  But if you are trying to say that a CRPG gives you the same roleplaying experience that I get playing at the table with my wife and friends, then I will just nod and back away, because we will never agree there. 

I am saying you shouldn't try telling me what roleplaying means to me thanks. I do find it little insulting.

You're creating a meaning I never intended.  I did not at any point tell you what roleplaying means to you.  I simply said that the kind of thing you were complaining about has always been the case.  That said, I apologize for the insult.

Of course it doesn't give same sort of roleplaying experience than larp, for example gives. But it does immerse me into the game more if I can tell exactly what I am saying to people in games.

Da:o gave me at least some sort of roleplaying experience, playing as Shepard in ME never did. I don't really see why this is some sort of problem to you.

Fair enough; I don't see why it's a problem to you, either.  But since when is a person replying to a post on an open forum evidence of a problem?   I was engaging you in conversation on a point I disagreed with.  Conversation is like that; if you don't want people to disagree with you, then you're probably in the wrong place; nobody agrees with everything I say, either. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

falconlord5 wrote...

In a CRPG, the purpose is to play a character within a narrative created by someone else.

I dsagree.  The framework is provided by someone else, but the narrative is a collaborative effort of the player and the designers.

The designers can't know what the PC's motives and objectives are unless they for specific motives and objectives on the player, and if they're doing that why is the player being asked for input at all?

[marshalleck]

Mordaedil wrote...

Saibh wrote...

For all intents and purposes you "modded" the game. You simply did so in your head, instead of altering code. It'd be like claiming you never defeated the Archdemon, and that that was a figment of your Warden's imagination. Fine and dandy, but you're contradicting the story they want to tell. The only person accountable for that is you.

I thought the point of any and all RPG's to be to tell your own story. But then again, I actually do roleplaying.

Wrong. In Bioware games you almost always play a pretty clearly pre-defined character. They don't do sandboxes. That's more Bethesda style. 

Besides. If I wanted to be pedantic, I would point out that nowhere in "role-playing game" is it implied that it's YOUR character you're playing the role of. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Slyvius, you're not actually saying the David Gaider was required to respond to you, are you?

Not at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Saibh wrote...

It's a video game first, and a roleplaying game second.

I think those two categories are mutually exclusive.

[Sylvius the Mad]

falconlord5 wrote...

Actually, you are. How you personally respond to that text, is entirely subjective. Filling in gaps, reacting to it as the writers intended, whatever. That's all pure subjectivity.

How I do it is subjective.

That it can be done is not.

We all know that the text (or VO dialogue) is just that, and nothing more.

We apparently don't know that.  Saibh is claiming the exact opposite.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 février 2011 - 08:05 .

[Saibh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Saibh wrote...

It's a video game first, and a roleplaying game second.

I think those two categories are mutually exclusive.

I know you do, which is why you're never going to play the game you want. You might come close, but the very foundation of games limits what you do.

The only option is to give you a disc that, when you pop it in, you are presented with a blank screen and told to imagine the rest of it.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Melness wrote...

Filling those gaps is what the wheel and its intent images intend to do and, sincerely, they are quite efficient in this regard.

I don't want them filled in by the game.  I want to fill those in myself - that way I can play different characters that are guaranteed to be interesting to me.

If I only get to play the character BioWare designs, then that character might not be someone I enjoy playing.

Both the DA:O and the DA:2 systems had their problems and arguable advantages, but the latter can evolve.

When DA2's system offers me everything DAO's system did, then I'll be happy with it.

right now you are complaining that the new system doesnt work for you. which is fine. but it seems to be an improvement that most people wanted so you will have to deal with it. and for the record i did play the game like you did. and i loved it. but that doesnt mean the writing was good. if the main chracter was voiced and intent was in the first one the quality of writing would be just the same. you just dont like that they are hindering your imagination by the fact that they are making the dialouge more clear via the intent icons. 

[Melness]

I don't want them filled in by the game. I want to fill those in myself - that way I can play different characters that are guaranteed to be interesting to me.

Too bad.

When DA2's system offers me everything DAO's system did, then I'll be happy with it.

And I'll be happy with DA:O system when I'm sure that the intent behind my choice of words is respected and that my character's face isn't frozen.

Modifié par Melness, 24 février 2011 - 08:08 .

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Saibh wrote...

It's a video game first, and a roleplaying game second.

I think those two categories are mutually exclusive.

its not. just the name itself shows that. its a game first and formost. the terms "role playing" are modifiers.

[Galad22]

JohnstonMR wrote...
You may have missed something--you're on a computer (or a console). 

Well see here this doesn't sound like someone who wants to have conversation about anything.
It sounds like someone who wants to teach someone else how what they are doing is wrong and just childish. And how they seem to have missed reality in front of them.

Now perhaps you didn't actually mean it like that but this is how it sounded like to me.

[MasterSamson88]

Saibh wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Saibh wrote...

It's a video game first, and a roleplaying game second.

I think those two categories are mutually exclusive.

I know you do, which is why you're never going to play the game you want. You might come close, but the very foundation of games limits what you do.

The only option is to give you a disc that, when you pop it in, you are presented with a blank screen and told to imagine the rest of it.

I feel like this is the only way to make a lot of complainers happy. 

[JohnstonMR]

Galad22 wrote...

JohnstonMR wrote...
You may have missed something--you're on a computer (or a console). 

Well see here this doesn't sound like someone who wants to have conversation about anything.
It sounds like someone who wants to teach someone else how what they are doing is wrong and just childish. And how they seem to have missed reality in front of them.

Now perhaps you didn't actually mean it like that but this is how it sounded like to me.

Yeah, I meant to be a bit snarky, but not as insulting as I came across.  Sorry about that.