996 réponses à ce sujet

[Cancermeat]

I've never played Zork but Ive heard about it and I'm glad games have evolved a lot past it so I welcome the dialogue wheel and all its controversy

[Gatt9]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...
 I am the main character in my life and prefer to be so in games. With RPGs and with a lot of Bioware titles this is also the case and thats why I buy their titles,

How does that work, exactly? The main character in BG2 isn't you, unless you were raised in Candlekeep by monks.

Because many gamers mistake self-insertion for actual roleplaying, which is nothing more than improvisational method acting, and in terms of a cRPG, it's not even -that-.

Just look at the mary-sues in fanfic to see the evidence of shameless self-insertion..

Thank you for the absolutely perfect terminology for something I've been trying to say for months!  Although I've been trying to describe it as Avatar vs Character,  using the movie as a point of reference,  self-insertion might actually be a better way to describe it,  I've gotta think about that.

Regardless,  you're absolutely right,  people keep assuming self-insertion equates to RPG just so long as somewhere there's a level screen,  even if the screen doesn't actually yield an affect on gameplay.

You sir,  are my new hero!

[fusilero1]

I quite like the Dialogue Wheel, the voiced PC and the non-interactive cinematics (from time to time) thank you very much.

[Anomaly-]

My biggest gripe with the dialogue wheel is the fact that it tells you the nature of what you're going to say and how the person you are talking to is going to percieve it. It tells you if something will be percieved as good-natured, bold, or some sarcastic spot in between. This should not be known to you when you are picking an option. That's not how conversation works; it's not that robotic and psychic. It's as if the designers were hermits who never talk to people. The whole point behind picking something to say is that it's what you want to say, not that it's how you want the person to react. The latter may be the desired goal and interest, but not the motivating factor, and it should always be unknown to you.

You should never know which option will romance them, which will result in a fight, etc, before you choose it. That takes the whole thought process and role-playing out of a conversation. It's not a conversation anymore, it's... I don't even know. It's just not real dialogue.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 15 avril 2011 - 10:52 .

[sydified]

I prefer the voiced character. Mute Warden creeped me out, and made it feel impersonal. To actually hear the lines voiced puts 100% more emotion into it, in my opinion.

[AAHook2]

Anomaly- wrote...

My biggest gripe with the dialogue wheel is the fact that it tells you the nature of what you're going to say and how the person you are talking to is going to percieve it. It tells you if something will be percieved as good-natured, bold, or some sarcastic spot in between. This should not be known to you when you are picking an option. That's not how conversation works; it's not that robotic and psychic. It's as if the designers were hermits who never talk to people. The whole point behind picking something to say is that it's what you want to say, not that it's how you want the person to react. The latter may be the desired goal and interest, but not the motivating factor, and it should always be unknown to you.

You should never know which option will romance them, which will result in a fight, etc, before you choose it. That takes the whole thought process and role-playing out of a conversation. It's not a conversation anymore, it's... I don't even know. It's just not real dialogue.

You know, I actually liked that sense of surprise when your silent Warden would have many choices in how to say or respond to something. What is being said is actually spelled out for you and you have to assume what the tone is.  With the convo wheel, your cues are little icons, but often times I found that what was voiced really wasn't what I wanted Hawke to say, or the the stance I wanted to take.
In Origins, you can read what is said, but it was a nice bit of suspense to see how who you are speaking to reacts to the content.
With the wheel in Dragon Age 2, you really didn't even know what you were going to say until after you hit the button. It bothered me.

[Kidd]

Anomaly- wrote...

My biggest gripe with the dialogue wheel is the fact that it tells you the nature of what you're going to say and how the person you are talking to is going to percieve it. It tells you if something will be percieved as good-natured, bold, or some sarcastic spot in between. This should not be known to you when you are picking an option.

But in so many spots in the older games, it's difficult to know how people will react because you don't know your own tone. You know what you're going to say, but you don't know how you're going to say it - and tone is far more important than actual words, really. It's why we decorate what we say online with smileys, or longer explanations than is really necessary just to ensure the other party reads it correctly.

To take an example, Alistair surely doesn't mind if you joke around with him a lot. You can even make fun of him while doing it as long as you don't go overboard. However there's multiple parts where it's very difficult to know whether what you're saying will cross the line or not, because it's not always your idea of how a line would be said coincides with what the writer's intent is. With the new icons, you and the writer speak the same language.

The way I see it, this is the kind of "errors" you get in DAO and DA2 alike;

DAO:
Alistair: Damn, that didn't go as planned.
Me: "Not very bright, are you?" read as "*smiles warmly* Not very bright, are you? ;)"
My character: "*angry* Not very bright, are you!?!" (note, you never actually hear this line, obviously, but you can make it out by context)
Alistair: Whoah, insulting me like that is really uncalled for!

DA2:
Isabela: This boy's cat is stuck in a tree.
Me: "(Diplomatic) Let's help him" understood as "Alright, let's go help out"
My character: "Poor boy, let's help him out!"

To me, the DA2 "error" isn't an issue. Your mileage may vary, but I do not want to go back, definitely not. Hawke says what I expect her to every time, but she doesn't use words I know before I hit the dialogue option. Exact wording doesn't bother me. In fact it's more fun to know I'm picking a fun option without knowing what the funny bit will be before I hear the voice actor say it.

[Snowbug]

mdugger12 wrote...
Video game RPGs have always had a trade off when it comes to the player's options, creativity, and immersion. If you really want all of those things a few illusions giving the perception of options or character creation in previous games shouldn't have done the job. If that was the case thats totally fine and either you don't play the games or you've accepted them for what they are long ago and approach each one accordingly. But don't pretend that all of a sudden you can't deal with the developer interfering with your vision of who the character is and taking away your options of what to say or do and letting you truly shape the story and world. That's just ridiculous.

The fact that video games have always had limited opportunities for true RP does not mean that I should not feel disappointed when the roleplaying in them is getting even more limited.

I love video games RPGs because they give me the opportunity to play them whenever it's convenient for me, without having to arrange for time for a PnP session with people who have their own schedules. Although I agree that PnP is a superior experience in many ways.

[AAHook2]

Did I misunderstand in Origins when I chose my Warden's "Voice" at the beginning?
I chose "cocky", so I always assumed that my Dwarf had a bit of an arrogant edge to what he was saying, tinged with a sense of humor...I don't know, that's how I always viewed it.
I also made it a point to pump a lot of points into Persuade and coercion stats. I mixed it in a lot with intimidate options in dialogue.
It felt like I had a lot of personalization options in the dialogue. In Dragon Age 2 I pretty much had to choose the tone that I thought would be fitting to the character and often found that I didn't like my limitation in choices.
I started off as sarcastic and a bit, well, cocky. After a point though, these choices started to seem wrong to me given the tone of the situation. It started to feel like the situation chose the response tone rather than me just going by what I felt the tone of my character was overall as an individual. I don't know. something about the wheel made me feel hemmed in, limited.

[TEWR]

AAHook2 wrote...

Did I misunderstand in Origins when I chose my Warden's "Voice" at the beginning?
I chose "cocky", so I always assumed that my Dwarf had a bit of an arrogant edge to what he was saying, tinged with a sense of humor...I don't know, that's how I always viewed it.

Thank you! You're the first person I've seen who has said the exact same thing I said! That the voice in CC is the voice of our Warden!

[XX55XX]

To me, voiced dialogue is a double-edged sword.

Without it, I feel much closer to my character, but the overall feeling is much less cinematic.

With it, I can hardly identify with the player character at all. But, it feels more cinematic, as if I am watching a movie unfold.

The question is: Do you prefer a more personal experience, or a more cinematic one?

Generally, I go with the latter. So, keep the voiced character, BioWare.

[Any0day]

XX55XX wrote...
The question is: Do you prefer a more personal experience, or a more cinematic one?

Generally, I go with the latter. So, keep the voiced character, BioWare.

Seriously... Why? Like - why are people seriously willing to pay money to "watch a game" with less cinamatic quality than a poorly writen B-movie.

No, I never buy games for that (because I could just watch a let's play on youtube if I really wanted to). I buy games and RPGs in particular for the level of complexity they have - not cinamatic value - because that's just laughable.

[Foryou]

I didn't know there were interactive cinmatics in Dragon Age Origins. I liked the dialogue wheel some times in origins things ended up not how i thought they would. Also I liked having a voiced character and by no means is that dumbing down it's a matter of taste. Having a non voiced protaginoist bugged me even before origins came out. How does having a wheel make it sound like it wasn't what you thought if there are icons right next to it.

[TEWR]

Foryou wrote...

I didn't know there were interactive cinmatics in Dragon Age Origins. I liked the dialogue wheel some times in origins things ended up not how i thought they would. Also I liked having a voiced character and by no means is that dumbing down it's a matter of taste. Having a non voiced protaginoist bugged me even before origins came out. How does having a wheel make it sound like it wasn't what you thought if there are icons right next to it.

Oh I'd give you the classic argument I heard most of the time if this wasn't in the no spoilers section of the forums.

But basically people want to imagine their character saying something, even if it makes no logical sense to the given scenario that's going on.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

XX55XX wrote...

To me, voiced dialogue is a double-edged sword.

Without it, I feel much closer to my character, but the overall feeling is much less cinematic.

With it, I can hardly identify with the player character at all. But, it feels more cinematic, as if I am watching a movie unfold.

The question is: Do you prefer a more personal experience, or a more cinematic one?

Generally, I go with the latter. So, keep the voiced character, BioWare.

Good argument. Though I would go in the exact opposite direction.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 17 avril 2011 - 12:28 .

[Embargoed]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Foryou wrote...

I didn't know there were interactive cinmatics in Dragon Age Origins. I liked the dialogue wheel some times in origins things ended up not how i thought they would. Also I liked having a voiced character and by no means is that dumbing down it's a matter of taste. Having a non voiced protaginoist bugged me even before origins came out. How does having a wheel make it sound like it wasn't what you thought if there are icons right next to it.

Oh I'd give you the classic argument I heard most of the time if this wasn't in the no spoilers section of the forums.

But basically people want to imagine their character saying something, even if it makes no logical sense to the given scenario that's going on.

Yeah. Logic sucks, obviously. 

Silent Protagonists = cardboard cutouts that can be molded at will. You can imagine anything for your character and pretend anything you want. Easier to roleplay according to some on this topic. 

Voiced Protagonists = Pre-defined characters with personality. This faces difficulty with those who would prefer to "roleplay" as their characters. Conversations are more cinematic. 

[TEWR]

Embargoed wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Foryou wrote...

I didn't know there were interactive cinmatics in Dragon Age Origins. I liked the dialogue wheel some times in origins things ended up not how i thought they would. Also I liked having a voiced character and by no means is that dumbing down it's a matter of taste. Having a non voiced protaginoist bugged me even before origins came out. How does having a wheel make it sound like it wasn't what you thought if there are icons right next to it.

Oh I'd give you the classic argument I heard most of the time if this wasn't in the no spoilers section of the forums.

But basically people want to imagine their character saying something, even if it makes no logical sense to the given scenario that's going on.

Yeah. Logic sucks, obviously. 

Silent Protagonists = cardboard cutouts that can be molded at will. You can imagine anything for your character and pretend anything you want. Easier to roleplay according to some on this topic. 

Voiced Protagonists = Pre-defined characters with personality. This faces difficulty with those who would prefer to "roleplay" as their characters. Conversations are more cinematic. 

Pretty much.

I can understand wanting to make your character say certain things and I get that it's a fantasy world, but some of the things I've heard people say they wanted Hawke to say made absolutely no sense and were completely idiotic even for a fantasy world.

I was able to roleplay very well as Hawke. Granted a few times the wheel made me think of something else, and I blame myself for thinking what I thought. But what I thought those few times were things that would've also worked in those scenarios. Other people will say that Hawke should've said this, that, or the other thing but none of those would've worked.

[Dragoonlordz]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...
 I am the main character in my life and prefer to be so in games. With RPGs and with a lot of Bioware titles this is also the case and thats why I buy their titles,

How does that work, exactly? The main character in BG2 isn't you, unless you were raised in Candlekeep by monks.

Because many gamers mistake self-insertion for actual roleplaying, which is nothing more than improvisational method acting, and in terms of a cRPG, it's not even -that-.

Just look at the mary-sues in fanfic to see the evidence of shameless self-insertion..

Self-insertion is roleplaying, Only a variation of it. Any title which allows for CC allows for this method to be applied, it's a method I enjoy. You may call it shameless but in reality it is merely different than your ideal way to play.

With self-insertion the 'role' in the fantasy world which relates to the CC version of yourself, immersed in the world and story while the aternative method is 'role' from the character perspective of your controlling someone else while in that world or story.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 17 avril 2011 - 04:42 .

[Gatt9]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Raphael diSanto wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...
 I am the main character in my life and prefer to be so in games. With RPGs and with a lot of Bioware titles this is also the case and thats why I buy their titles,

How does that work, exactly? The main character in BG2 isn't you, unless you were raised in Candlekeep by monks.

Because many gamers mistake self-insertion for actual roleplaying, which is nothing more than improvisational method acting, and in terms of a cRPG, it's not even -that-.

Just look at the mary-sues in fanfic to see the evidence of shameless self-insertion..

Self-insertion is roleplaying, Only a variation of it. Any title which allows for CC allows for this method to be applied, it's a method I enjoy. You may call it shameless but in reality it is merely different than your ideal way to play.

With self-insertion the 'role' in the fantasy world which relates to the CC version of yourself, immersed in the world and story while the aternative method is 'role' from the character perspective of your controlling someone else while in that world or story.

Not really,  Self insertion implies that you are the character,  in an RPG,  that's actually heavily minimized.  One of the major reasons for the attributes component of an RPG is to seperate you from your character.  A barbarian with an intelliegence of 5 is going to be completely confused by a ketchup bottle no matter your personal understanding.

While it is you to a limited extent,  through decision making,  in an RPG there's a great deal of checks and balances to seperate you from your character. 

What you're talking about is more LARPS,  which is really a completely different type of game.  A LARPS is more about you being your character,  without the seperation between your Character's qualities and yours.

I realize LARPS and RPG get lumped together alot,  most likely because a LARPs player is highly likely to also be an RPG player,  but there's very distinct differences in the systems,  and the seperation of you and your character is one of the most fundamental.  A great deal of the rules system in almost all RPGs is nothing more than establishing that seperation.

[AAHook2]

Some people prefer to read books rather than watch TV or a movie.
Some hate reading and would rather watch TV or a movie.
Some don't hate any of these options because they enjoy them all.
For me, I prefer my RPGs to be like books. I like long epic tales where the voices and details are elaborated by me. Often, times I come to like or dislike a movie or tv fiction based on the performances in them.
To go from the longer game in Origins where you read what the Warden says and have to place the voice yourself, then on to Dragon Age 2 where you have to sit back and critique a performance...It's much like reading a book you love with all of your imaginings and details to heart, then having to watch the sequel to that book, not in print, but on television. The quality of a television show or movie adaptation may vary, but it is quite jarring when compared to a book. More goes into a book and it ultimately is fleshed out by the reader's ideas and perception of the text content. Visual media forces you to first and foremost become a critic and viewer.
I found myself in more than one instance during Dragon Age 2, not liking the performance of the dialogue wheel option and this definitely took me right out of the immersion of the story. I really didn't like that.
I like it better in Origins, it's more literary. The Warden feels more like he comes from you. He ISN'T you, but in a lot of ways, your imagination gives him or her form, even down to the voice. In Dragon Age 2 I felt like I was given three basic choices of how someone else performed Hawke.
When you don't like the response or the acting out of the choice, it serves to jar you right out of the story.

[Dragoonlordz]

Gatt9 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Raphael diSanto wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...
 I am the main character in my life and prefer to be so in games. With RPGs and with a lot of Bioware titles this is also the case and thats why I buy their titles,

How does that work, exactly? The main character in BG2 isn't you, unless you were raised in Candlekeep by monks.

Because many gamers mistake self-insertion for actual roleplaying, which is nothing more than improvisational method acting, and in terms of a cRPG, it's not even -that-.

Just look at the mary-sues in fanfic to see the evidence of shameless self-insertion..

Self-insertion is roleplaying, Only a variation of it. Any title which allows for CC allows for this method to be applied, it's a method I enjoy. You may call it shameless but in reality it is merely different than your ideal way to play.

With self-insertion the 'role' in the fantasy world which relates to the CC version of yourself, immersed in the world and story while the aternative method is 'role' from the character perspective of your controlling someone else while in that world or story.

Not really,  Self insertion implies that you are the character,  in an RPG,  that's actually heavily minimized.  One of the major reasons for the attributes component of an RPG is to seperate you from your character.  A barbarian with an intelliegence of 5 is going to be completely confused by a ketchup bottle no matter your personal understanding.

While it is you to a limited extent,  through decision making,  in an RPG there's a great deal of checks and balances to seperate you from your character. 

What you're talking about is more LARPS,  which is really a completely different type of game.  A LARPS is more about you being your character,  without the seperation between your Character's qualities and yours.

I realize LARPS and RPG get lumped together alot,  most likely because a LARPs player is highly likely to also be an RPG player,  but there's very distinct differences in the systems,  and the seperation of you and your character is one of the most fundamental.  A great deal of the rules system in almost all RPGs is nothing more than establishing that seperation.

A lot of RPGs allow my method to exist. When a CC can allow simularities between the real world you and the virtual you, a silent protaganist where it's your voice and a game that allows a wide variety of choices where you choose what to say/act and don't. That is enough to allow my role playing to work don't tell me I'm wrong or shameless because that isn't the case and it's insulting. LARPS is something different and has no baring on this topic, it's physically playing the role in the real world.

Same way CoD is meant for multiplayer, it comes with story mode, some people like to play the story mode while others play only the multiplayer, different features that different people enjoy and take advantage of to play what they like. Biowares titles feature enough aspects to make my role playing work whether you like it or not you can't say I'm wrong because that is a fact that is how me and many other choose to play and in a large variety of titles it works for us.  

Most players don't even pick the choices in dialogue because their virtual Hawke would want it, they pick it becuase they want it. Some do distance themselves enough to play the role of Hawke but others choose not to, like in the case of the Warden where every choice is one I picked because I would pick that if was me in the world in that situation. There is limitation in games regarding choices but Bioware titles give you such a wide range of choices from one spectrum of emotional responses to the other that it works. Don't go down the route of limitations of choices means it's not you because in RL you face the same limitations of choices on a daily basis with only a difference in scale. 

RPGs do not base rules and stats in order to distance the player and create seporation. The rules are only set to create the world and enviroment your character is based in and has nothing to do with whether the player plays it one way or the other in a console or PC RPG game. The stats and skills only exist to bring fun factor and allow for your person to survive, create attributes that you do or don't as the player think your character has (whether you base the general idea of the character being you or not). I'm good at picking locks in RL does that mean I shouldn't have it in games? I'm physically strong in RL does that mean my character can't be strong too. I consider myself in RL to be perceptive, should that exclude me from adding such an attribute to my character in game? Both Bethesda and Bioware cater to what I enjoy regarding this aspect in their games, DA2 did it to less of an extent in this case but that is all, nothing more, nothing less.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 17 avril 2011 - 08:02 .