3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Hmm... that's odd. I can see your point of view by glancing at the list, but the problem is I can remember while playing the game being faced with the choice of using the precise sniper rifle or the damaging one very clearly.

Now you made me load up one of made saves to verify.

k. Found a early save with a sentinel I made just to check out some stuff. He's at citadel and got 3 sniper rifles on him. Avenger I, Hammer II and Reaper II. There is a distinction between those weapons as I mentioned, the avenger I even being the most precise of the lot while packing the least damage.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look too, just to see if I'm misremembering something. Gotta love it when you can't even trust a game's official wiki for information.

[Aimi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

First, I don't really see how that's a problem.  The game doesn't model all possible paths.

Second, I don't think that's even true.  In KotOR, for example, what it is you think you have to do?  Once you're on Taris, the game wants you to take steps to rescue Bastila.   But you don't have to do that.  You'll never progress in the game if you don't, but that's not what you said.  You said the game forces you to understake certain actions.

Which ones?  What actions?

You don't have to meet Duncan for the joining ceremony.  You don't have to ever visit Nashkel.  You don't have to cure the Neverwinter Plague.  What matters is that when you do ultimately do those things, it is because you choose to do them.

This is true for an utterly meaningless definition of "choice".

...congratulations?

Modifié par daqs, 05 juillet 2011 - 10:23 .

[Ace of Dawn]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

KotOR has a nearly identical endgame for any game path.

Only within the game.  If you ignore the game's structure, there are many different endings.  You could just live on Dantoonie forever and not go searching for the Star Forge.

...

Yes, technically. And you could enjoy a nice retirement on Alpha Halo once you land on it in Halo. Or simply stay at home with your mother in any of the Pokemon games. In Mass Effect you could just stay on the Citadel.

I really don't see the argument here. Yes, technically, you as the player have the choice to simply refuse to progress through the story through ultimate inaction in all except a handful of games. What's the point here?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

Yes, technically. And you could enjoy a nice retirement on Alpha Halo once you land on it in Halo. Or simply stay at home with your mother in any of the Pokemon games. In Mass Effect you could just stay on the Citadel.

I really don't see the argument here. Yes, technically, you as the player have the choice to simply refuse to progress through the story through ultimate inaction in all except a handful of games. What's the point here?

The point is that ME, ME2, and DA2 routeinly have the PC act without the player's input or consent.  That's the problem.

Whenever Shepard punches someone out when the player didn't choose for that to happen, or whenever Hawke sneers at slavers over the player's objections, that's the problem.

I was responding to the_one's claims that BioWare's previous games had done the same thing, but they hadn't.  When the Warden consents to the joining ceremony, he does so because the player directed him to.  When the Bhaalspawn accepts Shandalar's punishment, it is because the player chose acquiesence.  When the Hero of Neverwinter infiltrates the Bloodsailors, it is because the player wanted him to do so.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 juillet 2011 - 10:42 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't really care about the backstory because it's not something over which I can ever have control.

This is functionally equivalent to what you complained about in FFVII. Something over which you can't ever have control. The differentiation is that in FFVII it happens within the game and in the other examples it happens before the game. But, as you outlined with KotOR, actions that happen outside the game are functionally equivalent to actions that take place within the game for role playing purposes. You just contradicted yourself. If  you can have any ending after the conclusion of KotOR, and the backstory of a character does not change the quality of role playing, then it can still be role playing even if you sometimes cannot control the actions/behavior of a character during the game.

..........

What is your opinion on the severe drought situation in El Paso, when considering the delicate nature of the aquifers and Rio Grande?

That was a question that included new information.

[Lumikki]

I have to agree here with others.

Player has choises, but that doesn't mean player can have any choises they want in any time. That doesn't happen in any computer game. Player still has to follow the story. If you can't accept that character knows something what you don't or charcater does something little different than you wanted, then you will have major issues with all computer games. This is not some PnP game where DM can response to all you choises.

Games have limited amount of possibilities and not every choise will allways match what player wanted. That's why example biowares games has like few different attitudes and you can choose what you like to use in different situations. They aren't allways what you wanted, but most the time they will do just fine. Of cause there is allways few situation where choise surprise the player as respond was way out of players thinking.

But games have limits. You can't go beoynd the story, because it's not in the game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juillet 2011 - 11:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't really care about the backstory because it's not something over which I can ever have control.

This is functionally equivalent to what you complained about in FFVII. Something over which you can't ever have control. The differentiation is that in FFVII it happens within the game and in the other examples it happens before the game.

The events in the game are the game's substance.  If I don't have control over them, what is my role?  Why am I playing the game if my input makes no difference?  And more importantly, how is that roleplaying?  Where's the play?

But, as you outlined with KotOR, actions that happen outside the game are functionally equivalent to actions that take place within the game for role playing purposes. You just contradicted yourself.

That's only true if you equate choices I can make with choices I cannot make, and apply them symmetrically across the in-game/out-game barrier.

If  you can have any ending after the conclusion of KotOR, and the backstory of a character does not change the quality of role playing, then it can still be role playing even if you sometimes cannot control the actions/behavior of a character during the game.

How are you reaching that conclusion?  Either you've made an error in reasoning, or you're making an implicit assumption I haven't discerned (and which I don't accept).

How are you roleplaying the character if you're not the one making the decisions during gameplay?

What is your opinion on the severe drought situation in El Paso, when considering the delicate nature of the aquifers and Rio Grande?

That was a question that included new information.

It asserted nothing.  If it did, then there should be a possible state of fact which would render your question false.  What is that state of fact?  What circumstances, if true, would render that question you just asked a false statement?

If it is possible to make an assertion with a question, then it is possible to lie (make a false assertion) with a question.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lumikki wrote...

Player has choises, but that doesn't mean player can have any choises they want in any time. That doesn't happen in any computer game. Player still has to follow the story. If you can't accept that character knows something what you don't or charcater does something little different than you wanted, then you will have major issues with all computer games. This is not some PnP game where DM can response all you choises.

Good thing no one is asking for that.

Wow that's a common straw man.

Games have limited amount of possibilities and not every choise will allways match what player wanted.

That's simply false.  If the options are known to the player when he chooses among them, then he will absolutely always get the option he thinks he's choosing.  There's no uncertainty at all if you don't hide the content of the choice from the player.

ME hides the information behind the dialogue wheel.  ME2 hides the information behind the wheel and the interrupts.  The problem is getting worse, not better.

[Lumikki]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Games have limited amount of possibilities and not every choise will allways match what player wanted.

That's simply false.  If the options are known to the player when he chooses among them, then he will absolutely always get the option he thinks he's choosing.  There's no uncertainty at all if you don't hide the content of the choice from the player.

ME hides the information behind the dialogue wheel.  ME2 hides the information behind the wheel and the interrupts.  The problem is getting worse, not better.

So, you have three choise to make and you can't make you mind without knowing exactly what Shepard says?
So, you want see the interrupt scene before it happens so that you can choose do you use it or not?

You seem to have major control issues.  It's not choise of exact words or action, it's choise of attitude how to deal situations.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juillet 2011 - 11:27 .

[MightySword]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The point is that ME, ME2, and DA2 routeinly have the PC act without the player's input or consent.  That's the problem.

Whenever Shepard punches someone out when the player didn't choose for that to happen, or whenever Hawke sneers at slavers over the player's objections, that's the problem.

I was responding to the_one's claims that BioWare's previous games had done the same thing, but they hadn't.  When the Warden consents to the joining ceremony, he does so because the player directed him to.  When the Bhaalspawn accepts Shandalar's punishment, it is because the player chose acquiesence.  When the Hero of Neverwinter infiltrates the Bloodsailors, it is because the player wanted him to do so.

I still don't get it, even if I do it simply is a semantic problem without any real contribution to the game experience. No matter how you want to frame it, you're subjected to abide to the story or else you can't continue. I don't want to join the Gray Warden, period, and I can even repeatly voice that objection in the origin prologue. I didn't want to choose to join the Ceremony, but I can't progress the game without choosing it. And since this is a game, choices that doesn't progress the game is not choice so the point is moot. I can run around the field for days without going to my next assignment, and I can do that with any game.

Or if you want to prefer to the incidents that happens to the player without the player control, those kind of event happen all the time in game, and they're called rail sequence. For example if I say I don't want to be pulled into the Bhaal realm the first time it occured (right after the fight with the other Bhaalspaw at the beginning), but I'm still pulled in there regardless. You can say "ok just wander around and don't talk to the statue, but when you do, that means you decide to go to the planar realm". But you only know that after the first play, so the samething can be said for any other situation in other game.

Edit: and somehow I think this gonna be your answer: "but the player is given the choice of not progressing the story". If so then please don't, since I won't acknowledge that as a choice.

Modifié par MightySword, 05 juillet 2011 - 11:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lumikki wrote...

So, you have three choise to make and you can't make you mind without knowing exactly what Shepard says?

I can't know whether any one of the options will violate the coherence of my character's design.  And neither can you.

So, you want see the interrupt scene before it happens so that you can choose do you use it or not?

I've actually proposed something very similar.  Have the interrupt pause the scene and then present the player with more detailed information about the resulting action.  Then have the player confirm the selection or undo it and resume the scene unchanged.

The game can't ask players to make choices without the player knowing what the choice entails.  That can't credibly be called a choice at all.  At best it's a guess.

You seem to have major control issues.  It's not choise of exact words or action, it's choise of attitude how to deal situations.

When you decide to do things, do you not have any idea what you're going to do - just the general attitude?

If so, you're a very scary person.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 juillet 2011 - 11:45 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MightySword wrote...

I still don't get it, even if I do it simply is a semantic problem without any real contribution to the game experience. No matter how you want to frame it, you're subjected to abide to the story or else you can't continue.

That's a choice.  You can abide by the story, or you can not continue.  ME and ME2 don't give you that choice.  They force you to cojntinue regardless of whether you would want to do that.

The choice needs to precede the consequence.

 I don't want to join the Gray Warden, period, and I can even repeatly voice that objection in the origin prologue. I didn't want to choose to join the Ceremony, but I can't progress the game without choosing it. And since this is a game, choices that doesn't progress the game is not choice so the point is moot. I can run around the field for days without going to my next assignment, and I can do that with any game.

I already addressed that.  You're incorrectly assuming an excluded middle.

For example if I say I don't want to be pulled into the Bhaal realm the first time it occured (right after the fight with the other Bhaalspaw at the beginning), but I'm still pulled in there regardless. You can say "ok just wander around and don't talk to the statue, but when you do, that means you decide to go to the planar realm". But you only know that after the first play, so the samething can be said for any other situation in other game.

There's a reason I didn't offer BG2 as an example of a game that does this well.

But that example isn't a good one.  That's not something over which the Bhaalspawn had any control - he chose to inspect the statue, and he did inspect the statue.  Being pullled into the Bhaal realm was involuntary.

Punching out a reporter is not involuntary.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 juillet 2011 - 11:46 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How are you reaching that conclusion?  Either you've made an error in reasoning, or you're making an implicit assumption I haven't discerned (and which I don't accept).

You claim, simultaneously, that actions outside the game do and do not affect roleplaying. Specifically, you claim that back story has no effect but that epilogue does. The relation between these and the events within the gameplay is that all of them involve actions that you cannot control. And actions that you cannot control is your swing point in terms of definition.

It's not that I made an error in reasoning, it's that you directly contradicted yourself.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What is your opinion on the severe drought situation in El Paso, when considering the delicate nature of the aquifers and Rio Grande?

That was a question that included new information.

It asserted nothing.  If it did, then there should be a possible state of fact which would render your question false.  What is that state of fact?  What circumstances, if true, would render that question you just asked a false statement?

If it is possible to make an assertion with a question, then it is possible to lie (make a false assertion) with a question.

The question asserts that the aquifers and the Rio Grande (both important water sources) are delicate. And if I had included the phrase (both important water sources) in there as well, then it would have also asserted that the aquifers and Rio Grande are important water sources. The entire sentence is a question by definition of there being a question mark, and the information requested in the question is your opinion on the drought. The assertions are made simultaneously.

In terms of rhetoric, those assertions could be made so as to draw your attention to a certain point that you had perhaps been ignoring. Say for example, someone insists that despite the drought it is alright to water a lawn daily.

[konfeta]

So, essentially, Silvius's objection is that Bioware is moving away from blank slate PCs and turns them into characters of their own that you can influence rather than exerting 'self-insertion' level of control.

[ventrue3000]

Darji wrote...

Ok here is Biowares take on deeper RPG mechanics for ME3.

Casey Hudson: People really want us to deepen the RPG aspect of the
experience. We interpret that as being about the kind of intelligent
decision making around how you progress. To us, the RPG experience isn't
necessarily about stats and loot. It's about exploration and combat and
making a good character-driven story and good progression.

www.computerandvideogames.com/309188/mass-effect-3-bioware-on-surprises-inspiration-and-tough-decisions/

Guess they havent learned anthing from the feedback they recieved with Dragon Age 2.

RP stands for Role Playing, meaning that you play a role in a story, and in today's gaming world that story is precisely what separates RPGs from every other genre - unlike experience and stat points, which every third game seems to have so you can "tune" your car, weapon and clothes.

What I've see of the new character development system in ME3 seems very good, weapon mods are back, customisation is improved (at least they say that, I hope it's not just marketing-blahblah), and I even was content with the way ME2 handled it. Ever notice that a New Game+ with a fully developed character was still fun? So much for: "Character development is everything!!!11"

[Lumikki]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

So, you have three choise to make and you can't make you mind without knowing exactly what Shepard says?

I can't know whether any one of the options will violate the coherence of my character's design.  And neither can you.

Why not? Violent action doesn't happen in paragon choises. While renegade option can easyly lead in violent action.

You seem to have major control issues.  It's not choise of exact words or action, it's choise of attitude how to deal situations.

When you decide to do things, do you not have any idea what you're going to do - just the general attitude?

If so, you're a very scary person.

Yes, my Shepard is, but that doesn't mean I'm. I have perfect idea what's going on.
Only few time Shepard surprice me, like in that first council meeting in ME1.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juillet 2011 - 11:53 .

[Ace of Dawn]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The events in the game are the game's substance.  If I don't have
control over them, what is my role?  Why am I playing the game
if my input makes no difference?  And more importantly, how is that
roleplaying?  Where's the play?.

When I audition for a part in a theatre production, I am given a *role*. Does this mean I am capable of going against what is laid out before me? No. I can impart attributes of myself into it, but in the end, I still am defined by the character.

It is role playing because you are playing the role of Commander Shepard. He already has much of his character defined for him. We are automatically apart of the Alliance whether we agree with them or not. You are defining an RPG as literally projecting your every whim onto the character himself, and that being solely the point. However, Final Fantasy games are RPGs because you are the actor in the roles of the characters.

In reference to KotOR, I cannot follow the Dark Side of the Force the way *I* would like to. I cannot manipulate others or exanct grand master schemes, I am left with literally bullying people. I cannot leave the Jedi Order if I disagree with them.

Yes, there are RPGs that allow you to control nearly every aspect of your character, but that does not mean that anything else is not an RPG. You are still playing a role, that is central. Whether that role is defined for you or not is the question. And even if you don't have all the choices in the world, you still have some choices. Whether it be getting to the max level or helping people for that unique item or skill.

[Ace of Dawn]

konfeta wrote...

So, essentially, Silvius's objection is that Bioware is moving away from blank slate PCs and turns them into characters of their own that you can influence rather than exerting 'self-insertion' level of control.

Yes. Furthermore, he is claiming that blank-slate RPGs are truly the only kind of RPGs.

[MightySword]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MightySword wrote...

I still don't get it, even if I do it simply is a semantic problem without any real contribution to the game experience. No matter how you want to frame it, you're subjected to abide to the story or else you can't continue.

That's a choice.  You can abide by the story, or you can not continue.  ME and ME2 don't give you that choice.  They force you to cojntinue regardless of whether you would want to do that.

The choice needs to precede the consequence.

Then every games offer that kind of choice. But alas, I don't even consider that a choice. All the pretty word like "choice" or "consequence" doesn't make that idea valid. If a choice doesn't contribute or advance the game in a meaningful way, then it's either a gimmick, or a bad design. A claim that "you can play your character however you want" is only valid if your character can advance in any way you want, if there is a certain way or role that your character can't not take, or take but can not progress the story, then that claim is invalid.

[the_one_54321]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

konfeta wrote...
So, essentially, Silvius's objection is that Bioware is moving away from blank slate PCs and turns them into characters of their own that you can influence rather than exerting 'self-insertion' level of control.

Yes. Furthermore, he is claiming that blank-slate RPGs are truly the only kind of RPGs.

You're extrapolating his implications too far. What he claimed was that it's not an RPG unless you have some strong measure of determining the personality and behavior of your character.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 06 juillet 2011 - 12:05 .

[AlanC9]

Varen Spectre wrote...

My question therefore is: Is it really that necessary to advocate for an improvement / implementation of one feature (choices & consequences or customization) at the expense of the other? Unless somebody actually does want some feature to be removed. But that's quite often not the case. Therefore, wouldn't it better, if we players - consumers said: yes, we want more items (abilities) and more modifiable items (abilities) but at the very same time we want good story, choices, consequences, etc. instead of arguing which one is better?

That would produce an awful lot more agreement here than we normally have. But wouldn't it also paper over some very real differences? For instance, while in the context of ME I'm outright hostile to shops and loot, I'm essentially indifferent to lots of different equipment and lots of exploration-- it doesn't make the game better, but it doesn't make the game worse either (unless I'm forced to do the exploration). I could simply not post when someone requests lots of this sort of thing. But there really is a resource allocation issue here; more zots to things I'm indifferent to means less zots for things I want.

Edit: well, exploration makes the main game worse because it implies no actual urgency in the main quest. But I consider that battle lost anyway

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 juillet 2011 - 12:08 .

[Ace of Dawn]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ace of Dawn wrote...

konfeta wrote...
So, essentially, Silvius's objection is that Bioware is moving away from blank slate PCs and turns them into characters of their own that you can influence rather than exerting 'self-insertion' level of control.

Yes. Furthermore, he is claiming that blank-slate RPGs are truly the only kind of RPGs.

You're extrapolating his implications too far. What he claimed was that it's not an RPG unless you have some strong measure of determining the personality and behavior of your character.

I respectfully disagree to that, still.

I do not believe that to be an RPG, you have to have any sort of influence on the character's personality or behavior in the game. Only that you you are placed in their control. More or less, you are the character's subconscious, but whether or not he actually listens to you or even goes to you for advice is variable amongst all RPGs.

[konfeta]

You're extrapolating his implications too far. What he claimed was that it's not an RPG unless you have some strong measure of determining the personality and behavior of your character.

Hm. Genre labels truly are the root of all game forum evil.

[the_one_54321]

konfeta wrote...

You're extrapolating his implications too far. What he claimed was that it's not an RPG unless you have some strong measure of determining the personality and behavior of your character.

Hm. Genre labels truly are the root of all game forum evil.

No, that would be the marketing department, because they refuse to give a straight answer on anything, ever.

[Ace of Dawn]

konfeta wrote...

You're extrapolating his implications too far. What he claimed was that it's not an RPG unless you have some strong measure of determining the personality and behavior of your character.

Hm. Genre labels truly are the root of all game forum evil.

Imagine if Bioware came out when they were making ME1 and said

"We are making a game. Yes, we are known for our RPGs and that label could be applied to our next game, but don't. This game has a bit more to it, that labeling it anything would wrong, and may even lead to disappointment. Instead, we want you to enjoy the game, don't worry about what it would be defined as, just play it, because we are not trying at all to live to any specific genre convention. Ladies and gentlemen, Mass Effect!"

This thread would be moot...

Modifié par Ace of Dawn, 06 juillet 2011 - 12:18 .