338 réponses à ce sujet

[Skilled Seeker]

Gameplay is not representative of lore. Why don't people get this? Thus teleporting mages and Arishok's impale moves aren't lore. Also mage Hawke doesn't use magic when fighting in front of Templars.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 25 mai 2011 - 08:24 .

[the_one_54321]

Skilled Seeker wrote...
Also mage Hawke doesn't use magic when fighting in front of Templars.

You're being sarcastic, right? 

[rak72]

Good thing Red Sonja has those thingies on her thighs - wouldn't want to go into a sword fight without those.

[Skilled Seeker]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...
Also mage Hawke doesn't use magic when fighting in front of Templars.

You're being sarcastic, right? 

GAMEPLAY =/= LORE! In the lore yes of course he wouldn't use magic in front of Templars, otherwise he'd end up in the Gallows. I fail to see why it's hard to make this distinction. It's like this in the vast majority of games.

[the_one_54321]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...
Also mage Hawke doesn't use magic when fighting in front of Templars.

You're being sarcastic, right? 

GAMEPLAY =/= LORE! In the lore yes of course he wouldn't use magic in front of Templars, otherwise he'd end up in the Gallows. I fail to see why it's hard to make this distinction. It's like this in the vast majority of games.

Your suspension of disbelief is far more impressive than my own.
The way I see it, if we are given a direct visual representation of something (ie Hawke is casting spells while a Templar is yawning 5ft away) then it happened. I mean, this isn't a text adventure.

So that is to say that;
1. Lore states that Templars arrest all

........

You know what, just no. I don't agree with you at all. Gameplay does always need to agree with lore. Gameplay and lore are interchangable.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 25 mai 2011 - 08:37 .

[Skilled Seeker]

Except that's not how Bioware or any game company for that matter deals with things. In battles, gameplay always presides over lore. You might not agree with it, but that's simply how it's done.

[the_one_54321]

Skilled Seeker wrote...
In battles, gameplay always presides over lore.

Hardly. In a badly designed game the gameplay will violate the lore.

[MonkeyLungs]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Except that's not how Bioware or any game company for that matter deals with things. In battles, gameplay always presides over lore. You might not agree with it, but that's simply how it's done.

Bio actually has history with the exact subject of magic use by the PC in an area where magic use is not generally welcomed. Lore and gameplay interracting.

Plenty of other games allow for lore and gameplay to go hand in hand. I've played games where pulling your weapon out in town limits is unlawful and guards will first ask you to put them away and then will actually attack you if you don't comply. Same with entering someone's house uninvited, they ask the player to leave and if the player does not they run for the guards.

There are also games that apply their rule systems equllay to the PC and to the GM of the game (the GM being the computer). In such games lore is substantiated and maintained by gameplay and the gameply is enhanced by lore.

[HTTP 404]

female mages should have little black dresses.

there I said it.

[Daradain]

I think the DA team at Bioware is still trying to grasp the concept of hot-yet-protective armor. As a rule, armor must be form-fitting to work properly. This can look awesome, while still being protective, realistic, and tasteful. (Check out fem Shep's armor in Mass Effect for proof) Unfortunately, the DA team seems infatuated with either too much or not enough armor. As for black dresses… Well… Yeah...

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Drachasor wrote...
Which is a decidedly poor argument to implement sexist armors.

It is the exact same argument as those that don't want them: "I want what I want."

Only without the sanctimonious hand-wringing!

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

HTTP 404 wrote...

female warriors should have little black dresses.

there I said it.

Fixed your typo.

[Pasquale1234]

HTTP 404 wrote...

male mages should have little black dresses.

there I said it.

Fixed.

[Speakeasy13]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Except that's not how Bioware or any game company for that matter deals with things. In battles, gameplay always presides over lore. You might not agree with it, but that's simply how it's done.

Oh c'mon that's just a cheap excuse! Not to mention, no, gamepay doesn't always preside over lores in BW games. Not back in the BG2 days.

[mesmerizedish]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...
In battles, gameplay always presides over lore.

Hardly. In a badly designed game the gameplay will violate the lore.

That's exactly what Skilled Seeker said

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...
In battles, gameplay always presides over lore.

Hardly. In a badly designed game the gameplay will violate the lore.

That's exactly what Skilled Seeker said

They are saying the same thing, but from different angle. the_one_54321 is saying that in a well designed game, there is no need to have them in conflict.

[hoorayforicecream]

mrcrusty wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...
In battles, gameplay always presides over lore.

Hardly. In a badly designed game the gameplay will violate the lore.

That's exactly what Skilled Seeker said

They are saying the same thing, but from different angle. the_one_54321 is saying that in a well designed game, there is no need to have them in conflict.

Could you provide an example of a game that doesn't violate its own lore with gameplay concessions?

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Could you provide an example of a game that doesn't violate its own lore with gameplay concessions?

The Legend of Zelda, the entire franchise. Also, so far as I am aware, the Final Fantasy franchise as well.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Could you provide an example of a game that doesn't violate its own lore with gameplay concessions?

The Legend of Zelda, the entire franchise. Also, so far as I am aware, the Final Fantasy franchise as well.

I don't particularly think those are good cases.

"Why can I only lift certain rocks with the power glove? Why can I only blow holes in certain walls with bombs? If mega bombs are so powerful, why can they only explode a handful of walls? Why can I only burn certain bushes with the lantern? If the silver arrows are so important, why does the fairy wait to give them to me?"

And the most famous one: "Why can't I use a fenix down on Aeris?"

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I don't particularly think those are good cases.

"Why can I only lift certain rocks with the power glove? Why can I only blow holes in certain walls with bombs? If mega bombs are so powerful, why can they only explode a handful of walls? Why can I only burn certain bushes with the lantern? If the silver arrows are so important, why does the fairy wait to give them to me?"

And the most famous one: "Why can't I use a fenix down on Aeris?"

Everything in the Zelda series was internally consistent. It follows its own rules, and it tells you explicitly what those rules are. As for Aeris, zero hit points isn't death, it is unconsciousness during battle, much like in D&D. Aeris was not knocked unconscious in battle, she was killed.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I don't particularly think those are good cases.

"Why can I only lift certain rocks with the power glove? Why can I only blow holes in certain walls with bombs? If mega bombs are so powerful, why can they only explode a handful of walls? Why can I only burn certain bushes with the lantern? If the silver arrows are so important, why does the fairy wait to give them to me?"

And the most famous one: "Why can't I use a fenix down on Aeris?"

Everything in the Zelda series was internally consistent. It follows its own rules, and it tells you explicitly what those rules are. As for Aeris, zero hit points isn't death, it is unconsciousness during battle, much like in D&D. Aeris was not knocked unconscious in battle, she was killed.

Incorrect. The only way to tell what walls are bombable in the original NES zelda was by trying to drop them everywhere. The only way to find out which rocks were movable via power bracelet was by trying them. There is no internally consistent reason why the super bomb in link to the past would only be able to blow up certain specialized locations. These were never explained, they were just accepted.

In Final Fantasy 7, if the enemy casts Doom on my character, they can be revived by a fenix down. If they get shot by guns, impaled by swords, or have the entire solar system blown up on them, yet they can be revived by fenix down.

Aeris gets stabbed, and they not only somehow have no curative magic to use before she expires, but don't have anything for her when she keels over.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Incorrect. The only way to tell what walls are bombable in the original NES zelda was by trying to drop them everywhere. The only way to find out which rocks were movable via power bracelet was by trying them. There is no internally consistent reason why the super bomb in link to the past would only be able to blow up certain specialized locations. These were never explained, they were just accepted.

Ah, that's right. I was thinking of the later games. Well, in the later games it follows its own rules.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
In Final Fantasy 7, if the enemy casts Doom on my character, they can be revived by a fenix down. If they get shot by guns, impaled by swords, or have the entire solar system blown up on them, yet they can be revived by fenix down.

Aeris gets stabbed, and they not only somehow have no curative magic to use before she expires, but don't have anything for her when she keels over.

The game sets up its own rules and it follow them throughout. That stuff that happens in battle is not the same as what happens to Aeris. This is part of the whole battle system mechanics of that game. The battle screen creates an entirely different rule set. The game is very much internally consistant. It just has two different sets of rules that apply in two different situations.

And even if I were to agree with you about the death of Aeris, what about the rest of the games?

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Incorrect. The only way to tell what walls are bombable in the original NES zelda was by trying to drop them everywhere. The only way to find out which rocks were movable via power bracelet was by trying them. There is no internally consistent reason why the super bomb in link to the past would only be able to blow up certain specialized locations. These were never explained, they were just accepted.

Ah, that's right. I was thinking of the later games. Well, in the later games it follows its own rules.

Keep in mind what you're arguing. I'm not arguing that the gameplay mechanics are not internally consistent. I'm arguing that the gameplay mechanics and lore are divergent on an as-needed basis in games, and you are extremely hard-pressed to find a game where this is not the case.

They never explain why Sabin can suplex the phantom train in FF6, but can't force open locked doors.

They never explain why casting Meteor kills Tellah, but Rydia learns it like any other spell when she reaches a sufficient level and suffers no negative effects whatsoever.

[Zanallen]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Keep in mind what you're arguing. I'm not arguing that the gameplay mechanics are not internally consistent. I'm arguing that the gameplay mechanics and lore are divergent on an as-needed basis in games, and you are extremely hard-pressed to find a game where this is not the case.

They never explain why Sabin can suplex the phantom train in FF6, but can't force open locked doors.

They never explain why casting Meteor kills Tellah, but Rydia learns it like any other spell when she reaches a sufficient level and suffers no negative effects whatsoever.

Tellah only has 90 MP. Meteo costs 99 MP to cast. Obviously, that last 9 MP came from Tellah's HP at an absurd ratio. Because he was so old, he couldn't handle the HP -> MP conversion and died from the strain.

[Zanallen]

Btw, the issue at hand is this: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation