Regardless, there's no way for the game to know whether your character is saying those positive things about the Maker because he actually believes them, or because he wants the people around him to think he does.
Roleplaying with a Fully Voiced Avatar
Débuté par
Hatchetman77
, avril 13 2011 09:05
Retour en haut
#127
Posté 17 avril 2011 - 11:23
Hatchetman77
-
- Members
- 706 messages
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Regardless, there's no way for the game to know whether your character is saying those positive things about the Maker because he actually believes them, or because he wants the people around him to think he does.
Actually there is. The player flags it themselves with the "bluff" button in the center of the wheel. The whole purpose of that button is to flag something as a line of dialouge that the charracter doesn't believe in. This lets the character decide the intent of the line of dialouge to the character speaking it as well as to how the character believes the dialouge will be interpreted by the NPC he or she is speaking to. Basically the only real addition to the game is that the character can now flag dialouge that they are saying to appease soemone else, while unflagged dialouge gets counted as being a part of yoru character's core beliefs. This gives you an additional amount of control over your character's in game persoanlity that was not present before.
Why it is important is to flag and track these distinctions in the dialouge is to open up more story options. Now you can have your character go through a character arc which YOU can choose for them and is distinct for your particular playthrough, giving you additional ways to change your playing experience.
#128
Posté 18 avril 2011 - 12:44
therealmangiraffedog
-
- Members
- 6 messages
Anti-Man-Giraffe-Dog-Imposter-Spam post. please ignore and continue with whatever discussion is in this thread(mods can delete post after spam is done)
#129
Posté 18 avril 2011 - 01:29
Hatchetman77
-
- Members
- 706 messages
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
Sorry. I'm not going to follow every hatcheted quote of mine attached to another wild misinterpretation. I'd be here all day writing the follow-up. Call that evasion if you like. Way to live up to that nickname of yours by the way. [/quote]
Yes, I can see you're a very busy man. After 15 posts in this topic alone I can see how you would not have the time to directly respond to the inconsistencies of your argument instead of a general rebuttal. I guess you only had time for a mild insult. Next time if you could respond with a "yo mamma" joke as an insult for someone who dares question you? Those are my personal favorites.
Ok, here's where I need some help interpreting what your intent is. Hopefully we can avoid any futire misunderstandings.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
I have said all along that I don't believe in imagining my character saying anything other than what is written in the dialogue that I am shown. [/quote]
Cool. What is too bad is that this topic is not about that. This argument started when you took issue to me saying that I personally interpreted the nonvoiced conversatios in a certain way. However it really has nothing to do with my post. Throwing in things that, while may be true, are irrelevent to my post can often serve to confuse many readers into accepting something that makes no sense for fact. I just want you to be aware of this because I don't want you to be lumped in with all those horrible people who would do that kind of thing. I hear many people refer to those types of people as trolls.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
How you get from there to me not wanting ANY control over personality is something I can't help you with. [/quote]
Well, it's a combination of you saying this...
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
By reading the exact words you're playing the game of deciding what the script writer intended with each line....[/quote]
Which, by extending the logic in your argument means that the scriptwriter determines the personality.
And this...
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
To me it really just matters how the NPC reacts [/quote]
...which you used to argue that the intent of the player is irrelevent, as only the reaction that phrase gets by the NPC matters.
and this...
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
And the fact that the character is Hawke and not YOU doesn't? The Warden and not YOU? [/quote]
which states your opinion that Hawke has a personality independednt of the character.
So, in my head the math is...
(intent of player irrelevent) + (personality of Hawke independent of the player) + (scriptwriter determines personality) = you select one of three personalities that the scriptwriter has created which you have no say in aside from picking one of the three
Then I cross referenced my calculations with this statement...
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
You people need to stop kidding yourselves that a list of spelled-out canned responses in list form is somehow not as limited as a list of canned responses paraphrased and put on a wheel with icons. [/quote]
[quote] Zem_wrote...
It makes no sense whatsoever for the very simple reason that there are MULTIPLE script lines to choose from in any given dialogue. [/quote]
Yes. That is another true statement that is irrelevent to the argument. There ARE multiple choices. I am advocating to expand the range of choices and track through a specific system. You are opposing that system because of...well I don't know why because your reasoning keeps changing. I still don't know what you are arguing with this statement.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
Using the lines as written in NO WAY limits you to a single predefined character personality. [/quote]
No, it limits you to three predefined personalities.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
I choose my character's personality by selecting the lines that match as closely as possible what I am shooting for with that character. None of that requires making up my OWN lines and then ignoring the NPC's reaction when it doesn't match. [/quote]
I'm pretty sure I'm not arguing people making up their own lines with my proposed system. I said it is something I do when I personally roleplay and it is something I suspect other's do. While you seem obsessed with this it is NOT what the post is about. This post is about an in game system used to track responses to give players control over their own personalities. What I proposed is a way in game where people who like roleplaying in games may have the freedom to do so by having more control over their character's distinct personality.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
When I say only the reaction matters, it's *because* I don't believe in making up my OWN lines. [/quote]
Please quote me where I said I think everyone should make up their own lines. This is something else not relevant to the discussion.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
I don't want to do that and then have an NPC react in a way not consistent with the line I just made up in my head so... I don't do it. [/quote]
Again, not relevent to the discussion. However if I gave a detailed response it would be very effective with leading the topic of the discussion away from your inconsistancies and into a different topic altogether. I'm sure i'm wrong on that assessment though because that couldn't possably be your intent.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
You do apparently. Congrats. Have a cookie. [/quote]
What do you mean apparently? I flat out said I did. Our interpretations of what that means may vary but that's a discussion for another thread.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
And speaking of evasion... how about that idea of not tracking any personality traits at all?
[/quote]
LOL!!! Half this thread has been dedicated to answering that question.
[quote]Hatchetman77 wrote...
This could make for some dramatic scenes in the game. If your Hawke was a mage lover and a mage did something horrible to a loved one then you could have a sceen where you could make a dramatic switch and have your character hate mages now (and actually have a character arc). Or if something really bad happens and you are religious, you could now have a crisis of faith and choose to hate the maker. It brings up some interesting roleplaying options. [/quote]
[quote]Hatchetman77 wrote...
[quote]88mphSlayer wrote...
i say technological limitations because i think the future of roleplay gaming is basically voiced versions of the old text-based rpg's where you had to ask questions yourself, and the personality of the player character was 1:1 with the player themselves [/quote]
I completly agree. I also think that you have to start somewhere with bridging that gap if you ever want to acheive somethiong close to that 1:1 ratio in a fully voiced RPG.[/quote]
[quote]Hatchetman77 wrote...
I am proposing that dialouge decisions that are made throughout the game be tracked to compensate for this in an attempt to make Hawke's motivation for doing things consistant with the player's. It is already done in a limited way in response to your good/smartass/badass selections on the dialouge wheel, I'm just seeing if people feel that expanding on that concept could help bridge the gap between the fact that the fully voiced avatar is probably not going away and the feeling that many have regarding the fully voiced avatar limiting their roleplay experience. [/quote]
Sorry. I'm not going to follow every hatcheted quote of mine attached to another wild misinterpretation. I'd be here all day writing the follow-up. Call that evasion if you like. Way to live up to that nickname of yours by the way. [/quote]
Yes, I can see you're a very busy man. After 15 posts in this topic alone I can see how you would not have the time to directly respond to the inconsistencies of your argument instead of a general rebuttal. I guess you only had time for a mild insult. Next time if you could respond with a "yo mamma" joke as an insult for someone who dares question you? Those are my personal favorites.
Ok, here's where I need some help interpreting what your intent is. Hopefully we can avoid any futire misunderstandings.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
I have said all along that I don't believe in imagining my character saying anything other than what is written in the dialogue that I am shown. [/quote]
Cool. What is too bad is that this topic is not about that. This argument started when you took issue to me saying that I personally interpreted the nonvoiced conversatios in a certain way. However it really has nothing to do with my post. Throwing in things that, while may be true, are irrelevent to my post can often serve to confuse many readers into accepting something that makes no sense for fact. I just want you to be aware of this because I don't want you to be lumped in with all those horrible people who would do that kind of thing. I hear many people refer to those types of people as trolls.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
How you get from there to me not wanting ANY control over personality is something I can't help you with. [/quote]
Well, it's a combination of you saying this...
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
By reading the exact words you're playing the game of deciding what the script writer intended with each line....[/quote]
Which, by extending the logic in your argument means that the scriptwriter determines the personality.
And this...
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
To me it really just matters how the NPC reacts [/quote]
...which you used to argue that the intent of the player is irrelevent, as only the reaction that phrase gets by the NPC matters.
and this...
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
And the fact that the character is Hawke and not YOU doesn't? The Warden and not YOU? [/quote]
which states your opinion that Hawke has a personality independednt of the character.
So, in my head the math is...
(intent of player irrelevent) + (personality of Hawke independent of the player) + (scriptwriter determines personality) = you select one of three personalities that the scriptwriter has created which you have no say in aside from picking one of the three
Then I cross referenced my calculations with this statement...
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
You people need to stop kidding yourselves that a list of spelled-out canned responses in list form is somehow not as limited as a list of canned responses paraphrased and put on a wheel with icons. [/quote]
[quote] Zem_wrote...
It makes no sense whatsoever for the very simple reason that there are MULTIPLE script lines to choose from in any given dialogue. [/quote]
Yes. That is another true statement that is irrelevent to the argument. There ARE multiple choices. I am advocating to expand the range of choices and track through a specific system. You are opposing that system because of...well I don't know why because your reasoning keeps changing. I still don't know what you are arguing with this statement.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
Using the lines as written in NO WAY limits you to a single predefined character personality. [/quote]
No, it limits you to three predefined personalities.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
I choose my character's personality by selecting the lines that match as closely as possible what I am shooting for with that character. None of that requires making up my OWN lines and then ignoring the NPC's reaction when it doesn't match. [/quote]
I'm pretty sure I'm not arguing people making up their own lines with my proposed system. I said it is something I do when I personally roleplay and it is something I suspect other's do. While you seem obsessed with this it is NOT what the post is about. This post is about an in game system used to track responses to give players control over their own personalities. What I proposed is a way in game where people who like roleplaying in games may have the freedom to do so by having more control over their character's distinct personality.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
When I say only the reaction matters, it's *because* I don't believe in making up my OWN lines. [/quote]
Please quote me where I said I think everyone should make up their own lines. This is something else not relevant to the discussion.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
I don't want to do that and then have an NPC react in a way not consistent with the line I just made up in my head so... I don't do it. [/quote]
Again, not relevent to the discussion. However if I gave a detailed response it would be very effective with leading the topic of the discussion away from your inconsistancies and into a different topic altogether. I'm sure i'm wrong on that assessment though because that couldn't possably be your intent.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
You do apparently. Congrats. Have a cookie. [/quote]
What do you mean apparently? I flat out said I did. Our interpretations of what that means may vary but that's a discussion for another thread.
[quote]Zem_ wrote...
And speaking of evasion... how about that idea of not tracking any personality traits at all?
[/quote]
LOL!!! Half this thread has been dedicated to answering that question.
[quote]Hatchetman77 wrote...
This could make for some dramatic scenes in the game. If your Hawke was a mage lover and a mage did something horrible to a loved one then you could have a sceen where you could make a dramatic switch and have your character hate mages now (and actually have a character arc). Or if something really bad happens and you are religious, you could now have a crisis of faith and choose to hate the maker. It brings up some interesting roleplaying options. [/quote]
[quote]Hatchetman77 wrote...
[quote]88mphSlayer wrote...
i say technological limitations because i think the future of roleplay gaming is basically voiced versions of the old text-based rpg's where you had to ask questions yourself, and the personality of the player character was 1:1 with the player themselves [/quote]
I completly agree. I also think that you have to start somewhere with bridging that gap if you ever want to acheive somethiong close to that 1:1 ratio in a fully voiced RPG.[/quote]
[quote]Hatchetman77 wrote...
I am proposing that dialouge decisions that are made throughout the game be tracked to compensate for this in an attempt to make Hawke's motivation for doing things consistant with the player's. It is already done in a limited way in response to your good/smartass/badass selections on the dialouge wheel, I'm just seeing if people feel that expanding on that concept could help bridge the gap between the fact that the fully voiced avatar is probably not going away and the feeling that many have regarding the fully voiced avatar limiting their roleplay experience. [/quote]
#130
Posté 18 avril 2011 - 02:46
Drag0n-RD
-
- Members
- 119 messages
I can see benefits to both, in Gothic for example Nameless having a voice didn't bother me, rather helped add to it as I knew I was playing a hero. However when you're creating the hero I truly believe the voice should be left down to your own imagination not forced on you, though having an option for a voice would be nice, if a little over the top from a budget perspective.
#131
Posté 19 avril 2011 - 07:45
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 126 messages
Except you did have that before. If the game never offers the Bluff option, but also never assumed that things your character says are things your character believes to be true, you have exactly the same result without all of the development cost.Hatchetman77 wrote...
Basically the only real addition to the game is that the character can now flag dialouge that they are saying to appease soemone else, while unflagged dialouge gets counted as being a part of yoru character's core beliefs. This gives you an additional amount of control over your character's in game persoanlity that was not present before.
You're trying to fix the problem created by the addition of selective intent icons by adding more intent icons, whereas it would be much cheaper simply to remove the intent icons.
