447 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

highcastle wrote...

To me, DA2 versus DAO is the difference between character-driven and plot-driven narratives. The momentum of DA2 was driven forward by Hawke's emotions and his reactions; in short, it was moved by his character. That requires some investment on the player's part, admittedly. DAO was moved forward by outside forces, namely the Blight.

I don't see following the offers you cannot refuse from the Viscount and then Meredith to be a case of being driven any less by the outside forces, really. And after all that's what is moving the things forward in DA2.

[upsettingshorts]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In the same way people say Hawke "didn't feel like their character" I feel like the Warden wasn't a character at all.

So I suppose that would be a yes from me.

How so? You could add your own voice onto The Warden(like I do all of the silent PCs i've played. Except for Nameless One. He's male by default).

Because to me, if the game does not actively react and respond to things like - but not limited to - tone and body language, then the choices I've made in my head simply do not matter.

The Warden to me felt like a bad mix between an avatar and a character.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 juin 2011 - 04:43 .

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because to me, if the game does not actively react and respond to things like - but not limited to - tone and body language, then the choices I've made in my head simply do not matter.

Is there some sort of difference in how the game reacts and responds to your tone/dialogue choices between DAO and DA2?

[highcastle]

tmp7704 wrote...

highcastle wrote...

To me, DA2 versus DAO is the difference between character-driven and plot-driven narratives. The momentum of DA2 was driven forward by Hawke's emotions and his reactions; in short, it was moved by his character. That requires some investment on the player's part, admittedly. DAO was moved forward by outside forces, namely the Blight.

I don't see following the offers you cannot refuse from the Viscount and then Meredith to be a case of being driven any less by the outside forces, really. And after all that's what is moving the things forward in DA2.

Just because DA2 has outside elements at play doesn't mean it isn't character-driven. The crux of the climax rests on Hawke's emotional response to what happens. Most of the quests rely on his emotional response to what happens. Without that emotion, there's not much of a story.

[highcastle]

tmp7704 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because to me, if the game does not actively react and respond to things like - but not limited to - tone and body language, then the choices I've made in my head simply do not matter.

Is there some sort of difference in how the game reacts and responds to your tone/dialogue choices between DAO and DA2?

How about the unique options you get for sticking with a certain personality? Diplomatic!Hawke can persuade the elves not to kill the werewolves with no bloodshed, snarky!Hawke can bluff his way into a warehouse during Isabela's Act 1 quest, angry!Hawke can convince the Tal-Vashoth to fight with him, etc.

[DarkDragon777]

His emotions or opinions don't even matter. It all turns out the same.

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

Is there some sort of difference in how the game reacts and responds to your tone/dialogue choices between DAO and DA2?

A few, the first of which being that tone is implied in the text (something that is disputed by Sylvius the Mad and others) but isn't indicated, so as a player I've experienced the same kind of "I didn't mean to say that" shock as those who are critical of the paraphrase system do with the dialogue wheel.  In Exile has done an excellent job on the forums explaining this, better than I can.

Second is it's nigh impossible - for me, at least - to imagine the Warden as a character in a conversation when the vast majority of his or her interactions with NPCs, companions included, are what I describe as "talking head theater." 

And finally, this is more of a personal issue for me and only tangentially related, but it kills my immersion when my character does not speak, but everyone else does.  I do not have a problem with unvoiced games where everyone's words are text, nor do I have a problem wiuth a fully voiced game in which everyone speaks.  But hearing an NPC and then reading the protagonist is just a jarring experience for me.  The best way I can describe it would be to imagine watching a movie in which all actors except the one playing the protagonist spoke, and to discover what he or she is saying you'd have to look down in your lap and read a script.  That's a big deal to me.  My immersion, such as it is worth, demands consistency in this aspect.

DarkDragon777 wrote...

His emotions or opinions don't even matter. It all turns out the same.

I don't care how it turns out.  I care that in individual scenes, during individual quests, what Hawke has to say matters personally to the other characters around him.  And it does.
 
I do not believe cRPG choice is about going around setting plot flags for future installments.  

That said, do I think DA2 succeeded in utilizing the power of player agency?  No.  I do not.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 juin 2011 - 04:54 .

[tmp7704]

highcastle wrote...

Just because DA2 has outside elements at play doesn't mean it isn't character-driven. The crux of the climax rests on Hawke's emotional response to what happens. Most of the quests rely on his emotional response to what happens. Without that emotion, there's not much of a story.

If emotional reaction to events is supposed to be what defines the game as character-driven, how is DAO not character-driven then? The quests you go through generate emotional response and the outcome depends on that very response, unless --to use your own argument-- the player lacks the rp ability to come up with such emotional response.

[mesmerizedish]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

His emotions or opinions don't even matter. It all turns out the same.

DarkDragon777 has no idea what roleplaying is.

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

If emotional reaction to events is supposed to be what defines the game as character-driven, how is DAO not character-driven then? The quests you go through generate emotional response and the outcome depends on that very response, unless --to use your own argument-- the player lacks the rp ability to come up with such emotional response.

It's not about creativity, I am more than capable of coming up with RP in say, tabletop games where the gamemaster or other players can implement a reaction to my character's attitude.

It's about reactivity.  If the game doesn't acknowledge something - being that it is a game - I don't view it as particularly interesting.  Why play the game, then?  If I want to write fanfiction I'll... write fanfiction.  

[ipgd]

The Warden was just a player avatar for me. He had so little presence that none of my choices were really driven by anything but what I, the player, wanted to do, or what outcomes I wanted to see. I had a big kind of metagame detachment.

With Hawke (and to a lesser degree, Shepard, though the paragon/renegade system necessitates a ridiculous amount of metagaming that basically chokes any roleplaying potential), I could actually ascribe decisions and actions to him that would be separate from my own and thus indicative of a kind of character consistency independent from the player. In the end I didn't care about the Warden because he was me.

[KnightofPhoenix]

highcastle wrote...
Without that emotion, there's not much of a story.

Might explain why I think that ultimately there is not much of a story in DA2. 

[highcastle]

tmp7704 wrote...

highcastle wrote...

Just because DA2 has outside elements at play doesn't mean it isn't character-driven. The crux of the climax rests on Hawke's emotional response to what happens. Most of the quests rely on his emotional response to what happens. Without that emotion, there's not much of a story.

If emotional reaction to events is supposed to be what defines the game as character-driven, how is DAO not character-driven then? The quests you go through generate emotional response and the outcome depends on that very response, unless --to use your own argument-- the player lacks the rp ability to come up with such emotional response.

Because the Warden doesn't emote. The player can emote, but the Warden never reflects this. It's in part a lack of facial expressions and in part a lack od recognition to personal events. Outside of two conversations, no one cares that Cousland wants to look for his brother or lost his family. In DA2, deaths and losses get called back constantly, and Hawke can genuinely grieve. This was what was missing in DAO for me.

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

highcastle wrote...
Without that emotion, there's not much of a story.

Might explain why I think that ultimately there is not much of a story in DA2. 

I believe your cherry picking of this quote kind of misses highcastle's point.  If the story relies on emotional state of mind and you as a player do not "buy in" - as you've said on many occasions you were unable to - then of course you're not going to feel like the game had a point.

Precisely the same thing can happen to a player in DA:O who does not really care much about Ferelden or want to be a Grey Warden.  But would it be fair for such players to say DA:O "had no story" either?

Buying in is important in fiction.  That DA2 failed to get players to buy in is a huge issue, and one that goes beyond writing or Hawke him/herself.  I'd wager presentation - such as the early exaggerated portion, marketing, and audience expectations all played as huge a part in this as the story itself.

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

A few, the first of which being that tone is implied in the text (something that is disputed by Sylvius the Mad and others) but isn't indicated, so as a player I've experienced the same kind of "I didn't mean to say that" shock as those who are critical of the paraphrase system do with the dialogue wheel.  In Exile has done an excellent job on the forums explaining this, better than I can.

So that's not as much how the game reacts but rather the potential of getting an unexpected reaction, but it's --as you point out yourself-- something that the player can experience in both games, although in slightly different ways.

Second is it's nigh impossible - for me, at least - to imagine the Warden as a character in a conversation when the vast majority of his or her interactions with NPCs, companions included, are what I describe as "talking head theater." 

This has nothing to do with how the game reacts to the tone selection etc, though? I mean your reaction and the game reaction are two different things.

The third point is, as you say yourself, only tangentially related... actually i'm not sure if it's even tangentially related since again you talk about your own reaction rather than how the game reacts. Which really is a different thing, imo.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

highcastle wrote...
Without that emotion, there's not much of a story.

Might explain why I think that ultimately there is not much of a story in DA2. 

I believe your cherry picking of this quote kind of misses highcastle's point.  If the story relies on emotional state of mind and you as a player do not "buy in" - as you've said on many occasions you were unable to - then of course you're not going to feel like the game had a point.

I was not trying to be sarcastic, nor was I trying to refute his argument.

What I said literally means what it means. Because I didn't "buy in" as you say, I didn't feel there was a story. So yea without that emotion, I didn't feel there was a story. That's at least one reason, there are other reasons why I believe that DA2's story is bad.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 juin 2011 - 05:06 .

[xkg]

ipgd wrote...
...
In the end I didn't care about the Warden because he was me.

Well, isn't that what Role Playing is all about?

[upsettingshorts]

xkg wrote...

Well, isn't that what Role Playing is all about?

Not really, that's what playing an avatar is about.

Roleplaying is about creating a character and then playing that. 

Playing an avatar seems to me by default on some level metagaming, if only in the sense that you know the world the protagonist exists in is not real.  You bring your own, contemporary real world views into a setting where they may not exist.

Granted, I think most of us are guilty of doing this on some level, as it serves as a good premise for a lot of fun fanwanking.  But I wouldn't call it "roleplaying."

Alistairlover94 wrote...

So... you don't like having an avatar? You much prefer ME's and DA2's more cinematic storytelling, rather than you yourself being a part of the story, and how the NPCs perceive YOU?

"I" have never been a part of a BioWare cRPG story.  I also firmly believe that it's never been intended that I try to be one.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 juin 2011 - 05:12 .

[highcastle]

tmp7704 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

A few, the first of which being that tone is implied in the text (something that is disputed by Sylvius the Mad and others) but isn't indicated, so as a player I've experienced the same kind of "I didn't mean to say that" shock as those who are critical of the paraphrase system do with the dialogue wheel.  In Exile has done an excellent job on the forums explaining this, better than I can.

So that's not as much how the game reacts but rather the potential of getting an unexpected reaction, but it's --as you point out yourself-- something that the player can experience in both games, although in slightly different ways.

Second is it's nigh impossible - for me, at least - to imagine the Warden as a character in a conversation when the vast majority of his or her interactions with NPCs, companions included, are what I describe as "talking head theater." 

This has nothing to do with how the game reacts to the tone selection etc, though? I mean your reaction and the game reaction are two different things.

The third point is, as you say yourself, only tangentially related... actually i'm not sure if it's even tangentially related since again you talk about your own reaction rather than how the game reacts. Which really is a different thing, imo.

Possibly you missed it, but I said already the game reacts to personality tone by having characters respond differently regarding your dominant personality and also by unique dialogue choices open only to diplomatic, snarky, or aggressive Hawkes. Where is the lack of reactivity that you seem to see?

[DarkDragon777]

Yeah, except the cinematic storytelling actually works in Mass Effect.

It doesn't in DA.

[Mecher3k]

Hawke could be walking along a dirt road, trip and have a branch impale his brain and kill him and I would cheer it.

[ipgd]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

So... you don't like having an avatar? You much prefer ME's and DA2's more cinematic storytelling, rather than you yourself being a part of the story, and how the NPCs perceive YOU?

I don't dislike having an avatar. I liked DAO. I just can't see the Warden as a character, or care about him in any way, because his sole function in my experience is as an intermediary between me and the game. And because I'm aware I'm not actually in the game, I make metagame choices rather than emotional choices that would make sense in the context of my character's experiences as someone who actually lives in that world.

With Hawke, I have an investment in him as an entity separate from me but with reasons to react to the world in ways that make roleplaying sense. In this respect, I am more immersed than with the detached meta approach I take with nebulous player avatars.

[hoorayforicecream]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Yeah, except the cinematic storytelling actually works in Mass Effect.

It doesn't in DA.

I think it does.