557 réponses à ce sujet

[erynnar]

In Exile wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
This conversation lacks context, thus I could interpret the conversation with a variety of tones.

You didn't say you needed context. You said you could read the tone of writing.

Roleplaying could put a number of tones in there, but again, more context on the participants would be useful. Have P1 and P2 met before? Are they friends? People who just bumped into each other at the bus stop? *shrug*

Sure, but that's not the point you made.

People regularly misinterpret delivery even in the real world, you know. Just because P1 thinks he's being cheerful and sincere doesn't mean P2 won't respond as though he's a patronizing idiot. And even then P1 might not understand what he said wrong.

But in the real world, we can hash out misunderstandings. Conversation is not static - you don't "exit' the dialogue screen if things suddenly get wonky (e.g. P2 takes offence, P1 tries to fix it). Conversation is very dynamic.

Actually, I don't need context for your lines. I could read them any number of ways, much the way an actor could. And I that is what I am doing right now in DAO. And funny enough, I am not having a problem with NPC reaction.

Yes, real world conversation is dynamic. But there is no way to do that in games like real life. There are limits.

Modifié par erynnar, 28 juillet 2011 - 07:03 .

[Captain_Obvious]

erynnar wrote...

It's not that you're playing the game wrong. It's that you prefer to have someone else control who and how your character is. It s a prefrence., not wrong or right. You like having someone tell a voice actor what tone to deliver the lines in and you prefer to pick from a choice of three and watch how that plays out.

I prefer to be the director and the VA. I prefer to be in control, not sit and watch someone else control the avatar. The mute doesn't bother me because the avatar is just the skin I get to walk around the world in and interact with it and the people there. I provide the tone, the thoughts, and the voice, and I am the actor, not the audience. It is a preference, neither right or wrong either.

I can totally respect this opinion. I definitely think there is room for compromise.  On the other hand, my experience has been (here and on other forums) is that when I give my preference for voiced characters, or limited inventory, or whatever does not conform to someone's idea of what an RPG should be, I usually get numerous "get your dumbing-down out of my game" type responses.  There is usually also a "console players derp" insult in there as well.  Welcome to the anonymous internet, I suppose.  Such is life. 

[In Exile]

erynnar wrote...
Actually, I don't need context for your lines. I could read them any number of ways, much the way an actor could. And I that is what I am doing right now in DAO. And funny enough, I am not having a problem with NPC reaction.

An actor would have specific direction from the director and the script. 

DA:O is not my dialogue. It would be closer to this:

[John is the kind of person who is irate and cannot tolerate disagreement; whether in tone or content, if people challenge him, he will react, and react strongly but will always welcome agreement happily]

"The weather is perfect, don't you think?" said John, his voice dripping with sarcasm.
"I just love the snow!"
"Yes, if only we had this much snow every day?" said John bitterly. 

Versus:

"The weather is perfect, don't you think?" said John, his voice dripping with sarcasm.
"I just love the snow!"
"Yes, if only we had this much snow every day?" said John warmly. 


Suddenly, the line is hedged in. In DA:O we know the character of the NPC and the way in which most of the lines are delivered. 

Modifié par In Exile, 28 juillet 2011 - 06:06 .

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile has made similar points before, many times, quite clearly. Your attempt to belittle his position by claiming that it is "funny" you are having no such issues is ineffective.

That said, self-insert gameplay is demonstrably not roleplaying - so I'm not sure why it should be supported by features - or indeed used to defend features - in a roleplaying game. But that's a different argument.

[Xewaka]

As long as Bioware marries VO with paraphrases, I shall defend silent character is the better option.
Paraphrases have a limited character space (I believe a writer said it was 30 characters, but I might be wrong).
This means paraphrases must be extremely short.
A complex statement needs a longer sentence to explain it than a simple idea.
Thus, the more complex the statement, the more space we need to fully develop it.
Paraphrases, by their stablished limited nature, cannot properly contain and reflect complex statements. They can only introduce simple, basic ideas, and any complex statement must be simplified to fit the space.
Therefore, paraphrases cannot express complex statements in a manner inteligible for the player.
The player is reduced to make educated guesses, for which the paraphrases are usually insufficient, due to the fact that they cannot express complex statements.
Conclusion: Paraphrases are worse from a dialogue choice perspective.
If the paraphrases issue was solved in a satisfactory manner that allowed the player to make informed choices rather than educated guesses (read: show the complex statement in some manner), most of the issues with voice would be solved. There's still the issue of having two theoretically different characters sharing the same voice, which can be jarring to the audience.
As long as Bioware denies us the chance to make informed dialogue choices to force their voice acting on players, I shall oppose voice acting.

[tfive24]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

erynnar wrote...

It's not that you're playing the game wrong. It's that you prefer to have someone else control who and how your character is. It s a prefrence., not wrong or right. You like having someone tell a voice actor what tone to deliver the lines in and you prefer to pick from a choice of three and watch how that plays out.

I prefer to be the director and the VA. I prefer to be in control, not sit and watch someone else control the avatar. The mute doesn't bother me because the avatar is just the skin I get to walk around the world in and interact with it and the people there. I provide the tone, the thoughts, and the voice, and I am the actor, not the audience. It is a preference, neither right or wrong either.

I can totally respect this opinion. I definitely think there is room for compromise.  On the other hand, my experience has been (here and on other forums) is that when I give my preference for voiced characters, or limited inventory, or whatever does not conform to someone's idea of what an RPG should be, I usually get numerous "get your dumbing-down out of my game" type responses.  There is usually also a "console players derp" insult in there as well.  Welcome to the anonymous internet, I suppose.  Such is life. 

I'm a console player and i think it's dumbing it down.  A lot of u just want to play an interactive movie instead of a rpg. 

[erynnar]

In Exile wrote...

erynnar wrote...
Actually, I don't need context for your lines. I could read them any number of ways, much the way an actor could. And I that is what I am doing right now in DAO. And funny enough, I am not having a problem with NPC reaction.

An actor would have specific direction from the director and the script. 

DA:O is not my dialogue. It would be closer to this:

[John is the kind of person who is irate and cannot tolerate disagreement; whether in tone or content, if people challenge him, he will react, and react strongly but will always welcome agreement happily]

"The weather is perfect, don't you think?" said John, his voice dripping with sarcasm.
"I just love the snow!"
"Yes, if only we had this much snow every day?" said John bitterly. 

Versus:

"The weather is perfect, don't you think?" said John, his voice dripping with sarcasm.
"I just love the snow!"
"Yes, if only we had this much snow every day?" said John warmly. 


Suddenly, the line is hedged in. In DA:O we know the character of the NPC and the way in which most of the lines are delivered. 

Ah, but in DAO, I am the director and actor. Not just the director.

[erynnar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In Exile has made similar points before, many times, quite clearly. Your attempt to belittle his position by claiming that it is "funny" you are having no such issues is ineffective.

That said, self-insert gameplay is demonstrably not roleplaying - so I'm not sure why it should be supported by features - or indeed used to defend features - in a roleplaying game. But that's a different argument.

I would never call Ex's opinion funny or beittle him. He is fun to debate with and very smart. So if that was directed at me, you are putting words in my mouth. I never laughed nor belittled Ex, not intentionally. And if  he has a problem with my tone...well then he can address it and tell me and I can apologize.

I said the situatiion was funny enough, not him or his opinons.

Modifié par erynnar, 28 juillet 2011 - 07:09 .

[Captain_Obvious]

tfive24 wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

erynnar wrote...

It's not that you're playing the game wrong. It's that you prefer to have someone else control who and how your character is. It s a prefrence., not wrong or right. You like having someone tell a voice actor what tone to deliver the lines in and you prefer to pick from a choice of three and watch how that plays out.

I prefer to be the director and the VA. I prefer to be in control, not sit and watch someone else control the avatar. The mute doesn't bother me because the avatar is just the skin I get to walk around the world in and interact with it and the people there. I provide the tone, the thoughts, and the voice, and I am the actor, not the audience. It is a preference, neither right or wrong either.

I can totally respect this opinion. I definitely think there is room for compromise.  On the other hand, my experience has been (here and on other forums) is that when I give my preference for voiced characters, or limited inventory, or whatever does not conform to someone's idea of what an RPG should be, I usually get numerous "get your dumbing-down out of my game" type responses.  There is usually also a "console players derp" insult in there as well.  Welcome to the anonymous internet, I suppose.  Such is life. 

I'm a console player and i think it's dumbing it down.  A lot of u just want to play an interactive movie instead of a rpg. 

And you have exactly proven my point.  Thank you. 

[wright1978]

Oversimplified the dichotomy seems to me between the benefits of character control and the benefits of character interactivity. Individuals are going to have very different preferences and tolerances along these 2 lines. I like voiced protaganists as it makes the world and the character more alive to me and improves my roleplaying experience while control i feel i forfeit for those moments while not ideal is a lot less than the benefit. That's not to say there's not a point where control wouldn't become an unacceptable sacrifice for me it is just that currently i think the balance is reasonable. I could certainly willingly lose dialogue wheel in favour of dialogue choices but losing the voice would be a different matter. Others are clearly going to have radically different preferences and it is up to bioware to decide the optimum spot upon the spectrum to camp for DA3.

[Kelleth]

I am for both voiced and unvoiced, however, voiced can bring more fun in conversations but unvoiced can bring more conversations.
So it is hard to choose.

[erynnar]

If I may simplify. I prefer to be the director and the actor, not the part time director and audience.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

In Exile wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
This conversation lacks context, thus I could interpret the conversation with a variety of tones.

You didn't say you needed context. You said you could read the tone of writing.

So I did. I also said I can read the tone of writing in a variety of ways if context is lacking.

Roleplaying could put a number of tones in there, but again, more context on the participants would be useful. Have P1 and P2 met before? Are they friends? People who just bumped into each other at the bus stop? *shrug*

Sure, but that's not the point you made.

And I gave you two examples of tones I could interpret. What more do you want? That I provide the ultimate correct tone you were thinking of, without context? Naturally I cannot, but if there is no context and the author isn't around, it will never matter and I can be happy with whatever I, the reader, decide.

People regularly misinterpret delivery even in the real world, you know. Just because P1 thinks he's being cheerful and sincere doesn't mean P2 won't respond as though he's a patronizing idiot. And even then P1 might not understand what he said wrong.

But in the real world, we can hash out misunderstandings. Conversation is not static - you don't "exit' the dialogue screen if things suddenly get wonky (e.g. P2 takes offence, P1 tries to fix it). Conversation is very dynamic.

Yes it is. But I'm not sure what your point is here in relation to mine. You were saying before that you won't know your unvoiced character's 'tone' until the NPC reacts. I'm saying that reaction, in real life as well as games, often has no bearing on the tone. People can react to mere words, no matter how they are delivered. You seemed to be saying (at least how I heard it) that tone is universally understood and reactions to it should be predictable.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 29 juillet 2011 - 12:09 .

[erynnar]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
This conversation lacks context, thus I could interpret the conversation with a variety of tones.

You didn't say you needed context. You said you could read the tone of writing.

So I did. I also said I can read the tone of writing in a variety of ways if context is lacking.

Roleplaying could put a number of tones in there, but again, more context on the participants would be useful. Have P1 and P2 met before? Are they friends? People who just bumped into each other at the bus stop? *shrug*

Sure, but that's not the point you made.

And I gave you two examples of tones I could interpret. What more do you want? That I provide the ultimate correct tone you were thinking of, without context? Naturally I cannot, but if there is no context and the author isn't around, I will never matter and I can be happy with whatever I, the reader, decide.

People regularly misinterpret delivery even in the real world, you know. Just because P1 thinks he's being cheerful and sincere doesn't mean P2 won't respond as though he's a patronizing idiot. And even then P1 might not understand what he said wrong.

But in the real world, we can hash out misunderstandings. Conversation is not static - you don't "exit' the dialogue screen if things suddenly get wonky (e.g. P2 takes offence, P1 tries to fix it). Conversation is very dynamic.

Yes it is. But I'm not sure what your point is here in relation to mine. You were saying before that you won't know your unvoiced character's 'tone' until the NPC reacts. I'm saying that reaction, in real life as well as games, often has no bearing on the tone. People can react to mere words, no matter how they are delivered. You seemed to be saying (at least how I heard it) that tone is universally understood and reactions to it should be predictable.

And as a person who talks to people from all walks of life, almost all ages, educational backgrounds, countries of origin there are no universally understood tones with reactions that are predictable. Boy, there really isn't.   Add people who are scared, sick, or dying? And you have even more unpredictablity. My job is...interesting everyday because of this.

[tfive24]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

tfive24 wrote...

Captain_Obvious wrote...

erynnar wrote...

It's not that you're playing the game wrong. It's that you prefer to have someone else control who and how your character is. It s a prefrence., not wrong or right. You like having someone tell a voice actor what tone to deliver the lines in and you prefer to pick from a choice of three and watch how that plays out.

I prefer to be the director and the VA. I prefer to be in control, not sit and watch someone else control the avatar. The mute doesn't bother me because the avatar is just the skin I get to walk around the world in and interact with it and the people there. I provide the tone, the thoughts, and the voice, and I am the actor, not the audience. It is a preference, neither right or wrong either.

I can totally respect this opinion. I definitely think there is room for compromise.  On the other hand, my experience has been (here and on other forums) is that when I give my preference for voiced characters, or limited inventory, or whatever does not conform to someone's idea of what an RPG should be, I usually get numerous "get your dumbing-down out of my game" type responses.  There is usually also a "console players derp" insult in there as well.  Welcome to the anonymous internet, I suppose.  Such is life. 

I'm a console player and i think it's dumbing it down.  A lot of u just want to play an interactive movie instead of a rpg. 

And you have exactly proven my point.  Thank you. 

I'm not calling u dumb, but that's what it is. Some people like my self to have games that aren't so simple. When i play with rpgs, i like th experiemnt with different builds, armours, and weapons. But the way you want a rpg, that will not happen. 

[phaonica]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
That said, self-insert gameplay is demonstrably not roleplaying - so I'm not sure why it should be supported by features - or indeed used to defend features - in a roleplaying game. But that's a different argument.

Self insert gameplay is not roleplaying? I don't understand this.

[Sutekh]

phaonica wrote...

Self insert gameplay is not roleplaying? I don't understand this.

In theory, roleplaying being playing a role, means you don't play "you". If you play you, you're not playing a role any more, hence you're not roleplaying.

In practice, this is debatable, IMHO.

[erynnar]

Sutekh wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Self insert gameplay is not roleplaying? I don't understand this.

In theory, roleplaying being playing a role, means you don't play "you". If you play you, you're not playing a role any more, hence you're not roleplaying.

In practice, this is debatable, IMHO.

I agree that's debateable. I am me, an actor is themselves. They are going to insert parts of their personalities, their experiences into a role that they play. I of course insert myself into the role, then I play it as that character, but I'm still me playing them.

[In Exile]

erynnar wrote...
Ah, but in DAO, I am the director and actor. Not just the director.

But the director can direct the other actors too. Whereas in DA:O, those are set.

And like I said, we're cool. 

[phaonica]

Sutekh wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Self insert gameplay is not roleplaying? I don't understand this.

In theory, roleplaying being playing a role, means you don't play "you". If you play you, you're not playing a role any more, hence you're not roleplaying.

In practice, this is debatable, IMHO.

Okay, so is there not a difference between acting and roleplaying?

[In Exile]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
So I did. I also said I can read the tone of writing in a variety of ways if context is lacking.

"Reading the tone in a variety of ways" is the same thing as saying "I don't know what the tone is". 

And I gave you two examples of tones I could interpret. What more do you want? That I provide the ultimate correct tone you were thinking of, without context? Naturally I cannot, but if there is no context and the author isn't around, it will never matter and I can be happy with whatever I, the reader, decide.

That's my point exactly. The writer has some tone in mind when writing the exchange. The exchange (as en even said, while writing her dialogue) follows a certain logic. The response of P2 follows what P1 said. 

My point is that, when trying to pick the P2 response to P1, the P1 response to that follows from the tone. But with just the writing you can't tell me the tone of the exchange.

Yes it is. But I'm not sure what your point is here in relation to mine. You were saying before that you won't know your unvoiced character's 'tone' until the NPC reacts. I'm saying that reaction, in real life as well as games, often has no bearing on the tone. People can react to mere words, no matter how they are delivered. You seemed to be saying (at least how I heard it) that tone is universally understood and reactions to it should be predictable.

No. I am sayin that the tone is a neccesary part of the interaction. There are certainly people that ignore tone. But that is something specific to them and it would be out of character for them to attend to tone at all. 

The issue is that your PC's text is not somehow given in isolation; it is in response to and followed by dialogue from other NPCs, and that dialogue from NPCs is the context that lets us know how the item is said. And once we know how the item is said, that removes the ability for people to "pick" any kind of tone for the PC. 

[upsettingshorts]

Sutekh wrote...

In theory, roleplaying being playing a role, means you don't play "you". If you play you, you're not playing a role any more, hence you're not roleplaying.

In practice, this is debatable, IMHO.

I don't see how it is.  

You don't exist in the world, you don't have a past there, you don't have to live with the consequences of your actions.    Your personality isn't built, altered, constructed, and maintained by that world.

A character you construct - no matter how you go about it - on the other hand, can have or deal with all of these things.

That said, I'm not saying that self-insert gameplay is invalid, I enjoy doing it to an extent in Mass Effect (not so much in Dragon Age) only that it isn't really roleplaying and evaluating a roleplaying game based on how well it allows a player to self-insert seems like asking to be disappointed.

Especially for BioWare games, since they have been pushing the envelope of the third person cinematic narrative for close to a decade now.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 juillet 2011 - 02:03 .

[Sutekh]

erynnar wrote...

I agree that's debateable. I am me, an actor is themselves. They are going to insert parts of their personalities, their experiences into a role that they play. I of course insert myself into the role, then I play it as that character, but I'm still me playing them.

Pretty much. There are degrees, of course. You've got actors and players who play roles diametrically opposed to themselves (done that), but we all insert a bit of ourselves most of the time. Same when writing. Now if you play someone identical to yourself, that might be a bit far from roleplaying.

This said, most situations a PC encounters will never be the same we do, so there will always be that difference (unless some bearded man in armor knocks at my door tomorrow morning and tells me I've been conscripted into some bizarre order of monsters-slaying blood tainted people, in which case I'll stand corrected).

[phaonica]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You don't exist in the world, you don't have a past there, you don't have to live with the consequences of your actions. 

A character you construct - no matter how you go about it - on the other hand, can have or deal with all of these things.

That said, I'm not saying that self-insert gameplay is invalid,

So by your definition, self insertion is completely defined by pretending that your IRL self has been transported into a fictional setting?

[upsettingshorts]

phaonica wrote...

So by your definition, self insertion is completely defined by pretending that your IRL self has been transported into a fictional setting?

What else would it be? 

If it's something else... it's something else not called self-insert.  Metagaming?  "Vicarious roleplaying?"

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 juillet 2011 - 02:06 .