557 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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? 

Okay, cool. I was just trying to get on the same page as you with the definitions of these terms. Because when I think of self-insertion, it's more like, when given any particular in-game choice, I think to myself ... "If I were in that situation, with that background, and that belief system, what would I do?" as opposed to "Considering this character's background and belief system, what do I think they would do?"

Edit: "Vicarious Roleplaying" sounds about right. I'm considering that this term might be more accurate than self insertion.

Modifié par phaonica, 29 juillet 2011 - 02:12 .

[upsettingshorts]

I'm not following the logic.

In each case you're deciding what a character would do given a background, personality, and belief system.

You can't call someone else into the room and ask them what your character would do (Well, I suppose you could, but that's beside the point) - it's always you deciding. But whether or not your call is based on the character's own point of view is the difference isn't it?

All that said, I don't see how tone + paraphrase prevents or obfuscates that approach when compared to full text without either.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 juillet 2011 - 02:18 .

[Sutekh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In practice, this is debatable, IMHO.

I don't see how it is.

Everything that's not a tangible proven fact is debatable. Of course, that is also debatable.

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.

You don't construct that character out of thin air. You use the material given to you on one hand, and you bring in something on the other. That something is often coming straight from your own personality, in various amounts.

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.

Well, if you're talking about a total self-insert, meaning I'm expecting to be allowed to play my identical twin with a Thedas background, I agree. But this would be kind of weird, IMHO, since no Thedas citizen can be me, and it would defeat the whole purpose of playing as someone else. But if some elements in the game prevent me from playing the role as I intend to, I'm allowed to rant a little.

Of course, since everyone has their own definition of what is good for roleplaying, this is like trying to square the circle.

Modifié par Sutekh, 29 juillet 2011 - 02:28 .

[AtreiyaN7]

I feel more of an emotional connection to my character if he/she is voiced. Mute, expressionless puppets no longer really do anything for me - especially not when games have become more cinematic. I don't particularly want, at this point, to have to recite the lines in my head and create an internal voice. I do that when I read books.

[phaonica]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm not following the logic.

In each case you're deciding what a character would do given a background, personality, and belief system.

You can't call someone else into the room and ask them what your character would do (Well, I suppose you could, but that's beside the point) - it's always you deciding. But whether or not your call is based on the character's own point of view is the difference isn't it?

I would say that the difference, to me, is participating in an adventure vicariously as opposed to directing someone else's adventure.

All that said, I don't see how tone + paraphrase prevents or obfuscates that approach when compared to full text without either.

To me, it isn't the tone+paraphrase that obfuscates the approach, it's physically hearing someone speak lines that I didn't specifically choose/control.

[FieryDove]

phaonica wrote...

To me, it isn't the tone+paraphrase that obfuscates the approach, it's physically hearing someone speak lines that I didn't specifically choose/control.

1000x this. You win

[upsettingshorts]

phaonica wrote...

I would say that the difference, to me, is participating in an adventure vicariously as opposed to directing someone else's adventure.

That seems more like an issue of first vs. third person.  I'd retype out what I mean but I've got this link instead. It's from a thread about cinematics, not self-insert, but the idea is that to some players cRPGs have always been about the latter.  Obviously, those who disagree would see developments like paraphrase and voice as changing the nature of cRPGs.

Hence, third person players probably enjoy VO near universally (or at least as close to it as I can reasonably guess) and first person players probably view it as a direct challenge to their conception of the genre.

phaonica wrote...

To me, it isn't the tone+paraphrase that obfuscates the approach, it's physically hearing someone speak lines that I didn't specifically choose/control.

Unless you're typing out the lines yourself, I don't understand how you could see yourself having more control over reading lines you didn't specifically choose or control either.  Writer intent is still present.  

[phaonica]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That seems more like an issue of first vs. third person.  I'd retype out what I mean but I've got this link instead. It's from a thread about cinematics, not self-insert, but the idea is that to some players cRPGs have always been about the latter.  Obviously, those who disagree would see developments like paraphrase and voice as changing the nature of cRPGs.

Hence, third person players probably enjoy VO near universally (or at least as close to it as I can reasonably guess) and first person players probably view it as a direct challenge to their conception of the genre.

I definitely agree that it is a difference between first person and third person gameplay. I enjoy both types of gameplay, to be sure, and I don't want to imply that I think *all* games should be first person, or *all* games should be third person. Just because I don't like racing games, for example, doesn't mean that I think they shouldn't be made. I think there should be a variety of games available for a variety of players.

That being said, I do tend to enjoy first person games more than third person ones, mostly due to the inherent interactivity of a video game. I generally can't vicariously adventure through a character in a movie or a book (even a first person book) because I do not have as much control as I could potentially have in a video game.

phaonica wrote...

To me, it isn't the tone+paraphrase that obfuscates the approach, it's physically hearing someone speak lines that I didn't specifically choose/control.

Unless you're typing out the lines yourself, I don't understand how you could see yourself having more control over reading lines you didn't specifically choose or control either.  Writer intent is still present. 

Because in reading the lines I knew *exactly* what was "said" as opposed to in reading paraphrases I could only guess as to what was actually going to be said. I will admit that writer intent is always present, but with DAO, I felt like there was more of an illusion of freedom to choose tone and intent than there was in DA2.

Modifié par phaonica, 29 juillet 2011 - 03:09 .

[erynnar]

phaonica wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm not following the logic.

In each case you're deciding what a character would do given a background, personality, and belief system.

You can't call someone else into the room and ask them what your character would do (Well, I suppose you could, but that's beside the point) - it's always you deciding. But whether or not your call is based on the character's own point of view is the difference isn't it?

I would say that the difference, to me, is participating in an adventure vicariously as opposed to directing someone else's adventure.

All that said, I don't see how tone + paraphrase prevents or obfuscates that approach when compared to full text without either.

To me, it isn't the tone+paraphrase that obfuscates the approach, it's physically hearing someone speak lines that I didn't specifically choose/control.

That's how I feel about it too. And same for your second post too.  Writer intent is there, sure, but I prefer the 'surprise of an NPC" response (which I'm sure I'll have in DAO, though I haven't yet) to the "surprise" of what my supposed character is saying.

Modifié par erynnar, 29 juillet 2011 - 03:35 .

[hoorayforicecream]

phaonica wrote...

Because in reading the lines I knew *exactly* what was "said" as opposed to in reading paraphrases I could only guess as to what was actually going to be said. I will admit that writer intent is always present, but with DAO, I felt like there was more of an illusion of freedom to choose tone and intent than there was in DA2.

Wouldn't the solution to this be more accurate paraphrases, rather than to simply cut the voice?

[phaonica]

erynnar wrote...

phaonica wrote...

To me, it isn't the tone+paraphrase that obfuscates the approach, it's physically hearing someone speak lines that I didn't specifically choose/control.

That's how I feel about it too.

I might further clarify that, to me, voice is the specific aspect that obfuscates the "vicarious roleplaying" approach, therefore complete line + voice is only going to be marginally better (to me) than paraphrase + voice.

[upsettingshorts]

Well for me what 'breaks my immersion' more than anything - on this subject anyway - is having everyone in the entire world speak except the protagonist. The inconsistency is downright jarring to me.

Don't have the same problem in Baldur's Gate or Mass Effect, to cite two wildly different examples.

[Captain_Obvious]

tfive24 wrote...

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. 

No, you're saying that my preference for how to play an RPG is dumb.  That exactly proves my point that some people like to tell other people "you're playing the game wrong" as if you yourself hold some kind of authority as the arbiter of how someone must play an RPG.  Since I liked DA2 very much, the I way I want an RPG has happened quite recently, in fact. 

[erynnar]

phaonica wrote...

erynnar wrote...

phaonica wrote...

To me, it isn't the tone+paraphrase that obfuscates the approach, it's physically hearing someone speak lines that I didn't specifically choose/control.

That's how I feel about it too.

I might further clarify that, to me, voice is the specific aspect that obfuscates the "vicarious roleplaying" approach, therefore complete line + voice is only going to be marginally better (to me) than paraphrase + voice.

Yeah same for me. I can understand upsettingshorts break in immersion too. It just doesn't happen that way for me.

[Merci357]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well for me what 'breaks my immersion' more than anything - on this subject anyway - is having everyone in the entire world speak except the protagonist. The inconsistency is downright jarring to me.

 

That's only part of the problem, and for me the lesser one. But I hate it when the PC is relegated into a mute background puppet in each and every cutscene. Plenty of examples of this in DA:O - like the Landsmeet, the speech before the march to Denerim, the joinings in Awakening.

In my view the cinematic approach most current cRPG's use (ME, AP, TW2, DE:HR) just doesn't work with a silent PC. And as such DA2, while it did many things not so well, the voiced PC was one of the few improvements in my book. But then again, I'm a third person RPG player.

[phaonica]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well for me what 'breaks my immersion' more than anything - on this subject anyway - is having everyone in the entire world speak except the protagonist. The inconsistency is downright jarring to me.

I can understand that, it just didn't happen to me that way in DAO.

To me, what breaks my immersion more than anything, is hinderances to my adventuring vicariously through the protagonist, and nothing seems to disconnect me more than hearing a voiced protagonist.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

In Exile wrote...

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.

I understand what you're saying, but I think that skilled writers have little trouble conveying tone. If context (ie. logic) is provided then I disagree that it's impossible to discern tone just from the writing. VO, while common now, is still a recent development in computer games. There have been plenty of RPGs that deliver dialogue with text only, even omitting descriptors that reveal if the words are a 'hateful snarl' or 'loving whisper', and I've never had an issue with imagining the tone of PC responses within the context of the conversation.

And if I was ever wrong, insofar as the original writer intended, it never seemed to matter (to me or the writer).

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.

Hm. I disagree that voiced tone is necessary. My imagination has done fine filling the gaps thus far.

If others have a harder time of it, I can understand them preferring VOs.

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. 

Ok, here I want to clarify something. It's not the emotion conveyed in VOs that I'm opposed to or particularly wanting to imagine but the actual voice itself. Sticking a PC with a set voice is, to me, like forcing them to use a set portrait.

I think when we started discussing tone we had different ideas of what sort of tone we meant. I knew you were talking about emotional tone rather than vocals (pitch etc), but I didn't think you thought I was suggesting emotional tone should be the province of the reader/PC. I don't. I think the sound of the voice itself, the pitch and depth, timbre and tune, is what should be given to the imagination of the player, just as control of what their character looks like is. (Or we should at least be given a mute button so we're not forced to endure a voice we don't like, or one we think doesn't fit).

Does that make more sense?

(Anyway, I haven't revised this reply. Lunch awaits!)

[phaonica]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
I think the sound of the voice itself, the pitch and depth, timbre and tune, is what should be given to the imagination of the player, just as control of what their character looks like is. (Or we should at least be given a mute button so we're not forced to endure a voice we don't like, or one we think doesn't fit).
 

I think that would be an acceptable compromise, howevever, to me, it seems to require that the dialog choice must be a complete line, and not just a paraphrase.

Ignoring the costs, being able to customize your experience via voiced or unvoiced protagonist, tone icons or no tone icons, full lines or paraphrases could maybe address this conflict better than having a multitude of voices from which to choose.

Watching a silent protagonist gesticulate the lines might be odd, too, but having the option to turn the voice off and read complete lines might be an acceptable compromise.

[KnightofPhoenix]

From my experience, I found that what breaks my immersion has little to do with whether the PC is voiced or not, but rather what the PC is designed to be.

A fully voiced set protagonist can immerse me as much as a silent and relatively more customizable PC. Two examples would be Geralt from The Witcher and the Warden from Origins.

The problem thus for me, is when I have voiced PCs that stand in the awkward middle. Not giving enough room to RP, while not being set either. The two examples are Shepard and Hawke. Maybe it's just me, but I can't say they are set, nor can I say they are as "first-person" as the Warden. The only exception thus far for me is Mike Thorton from Alpha Protocol, though that may be because one of the ways to play him is exactly how I'd want to play.

That is of course just my impression and opinion.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 juillet 2011 - 04:36 .

[erynnar]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

In Exile wrote...

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.

I understand what you're saying, but I think that skilled writers have little trouble conveying tone. If context (ie. logic) is provided then I disagree that it's impossible to discern tone just from the writing. VO, while common now, is still a recent development in computer games. There have been plenty of RPGs that deliver dialogue with text only, even omitting descriptors that reveal if the words are a 'hateful snarl' or 'loving whisper', and I've never had an issue with imagining the tone of PC responses within the context of the conversation.

And if I was ever wrong, insofar as the original writer intended, it never seemed to matter (to me or the writer).

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.

Hm. I disagree that voiced tone is necessary. My imagination has done fine filling the gaps thus far.

If others have a harder time of it, I can understand them preferring VOs.

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. 

Ok, here I want to clarify something. It's not the emotion conveyed in VOs that I'm opposed to or particularly wanting to imagine but the actual voice itself. Sticking a PC with a set voice is, to me, like forcing them to use a set portrait.

I think when we started discussing tone we had different ideas of what sort of tone we meant. I knew you were talking about emotional tone rather than vocals (pitch etc), but I didn't think you thought I was suggesting emotional tone should be the province of the reader/PC. I don't. I think the sound of the voice itself, the pitch and depth, timbre and tune, is what should be given to the imagination of the player, just as control of what their character looks like is. (Or we should at least be given a mute button so we're not forced to endure a voice we don't like, or one we think doesn't fit).

Does that make more sense?

(Anyway, I haven't revised this reply. Lunch awaits!)

I guess I am in the same boat as you Shadow. I too never had a problem inferring tone. If it wasn't what the writers intended, it didn't bother me and I can say as a write for a mod, with a convo, it wouldn't bother me to know someone read what I wrote in a different way than I wrote it.

And that was why I said, funny enough, so far, in DAO, I haven't run into a strange NPC response to my choice of dialogue. I am still open to it happening. I assume it will somewhere in game, since so many have mentioned it as a problem. But so far, no.

[Cutlass Jack]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The problem thus for me, is when I have voiced PCs that stand in the awkward middle. Not giving enough room to RP, while not being set either. The two examples are Shepard and Hawke. Maybe it's just me, but I can't say they are set, nor can I say they are as "first-person" as the Warden. The only exception thus far for me is Mike Thorton from Alpha Protocol, though that may be because one of the ways to play him is exactly how I'd want to play. 

I'd say your end assessment is the correct one.* Hawke always played exactly how I wanted him to play and said what I wanted him to say. Mike Thorton never did. Shepard fell somewhere inbetween.

How good the RP is with a voiced protaganist is directly linked to how close he/she is to your RP concept, voicewise.


*Insert usual 'in my opinon' disclaimer.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 29 juillet 2011 - 04:46 .

[erynnar]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

From my experience, I found that what breaks my immersion has little to do with whether the PC is voiced or not, but rather what the PC is designed to be.

A fully voiced set protagonist can immerse me as much as a silent and relatively more customizable PC. Two examples would be Geralt from The Witcher and the Warden from Origins.

The problem thus for me, is when I have voiced PCs that stand in the awkward middle. Not giving enough room to RP, while not being set either. The two examples are Shepard and Hawke. Maybe it's just me, but I can't say they are set, nor can I say they are as "first-person" as the Warden. The only exception thus far for me is Mike Thorton from Alpha Protocol, though that may be because one of the ways to play him is exactly how I'd want to play.

That is of course just my impression and opinion.

You know, I wonder about this. I don't mind playing Geralt. He is a bad ass mo' f'er. And I am surprised that I enjoy playing him as much as I do (not customizable in appearence or gender, etc).  But I do. And he is voiced. 

[erynnar]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The problem thus for me, is when I have voiced PCs that stand in the awkward middle. Not giving enough room to RP, while not being set either. The two examples are Shepard and Hawke. Maybe it's just me, but I can't say they are set, nor can I say they are as "first-person" as the Warden. The only exception thus far for me is Mike Thorton from Alpha Protocol, though that may be because one of the ways to play him is exactly how I'd want to play. 

I'd say your end assessment is the correct one.* Hawke always played exactly how I wanted him to play and said what I wanted him to say. Mike Thorton never did. Shepard fell somewhere inbetween.

How good the RP is with a voiced protaganist is directly linked to how close he/she is to your RP concept, voicewise.


*Insert usual 'in my opinon' disclaimer.

Prepare to be borded for huggles! *HUGGLES*  I haven't played Shep yet, need to get ME1 to go with ME2 (thanks BioWare). But I had the opposite with Hawke. She didnt' play the way I wanted, and didn't  say what I wanted. ROFL!. Though the mage was fun in combat. I do admit. And now I have the patch, and thanks to a very lovely person (Tommy) who helped me get the DLC, I am going to play and see what happens. I may like Hawke better. Who know? I can't wait to find out.:happy:

[In Exile]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
I understand what you're saying, but I think that skilled writers have little trouble conveying tone. If context (ie. logic) is provided then I disagree that it's impossible to discern tone just from the writing. VO, while common now, is still a recent development in computer games. There have been plenty of RPGs that deliver dialogue with text only, even omitting descriptors that reveal if the words are a 'hateful snarl' or 'loving whisper', and I've never had an issue with imagining the tone of PC responses within the context of the conversation.

All of that is true. I'm not debating that with context, you can determine the tone of what is being said (logically). I'm saying that the tone you can pick as the player for the PC is restricted by that logic.

And if I was ever wrong, insofar as the original writer intended, it never seemed to matter (to me or the writer).

In a conversation in old RPGs, though, you had to imagine tone for player and NPC alike. That changes things.

Hm. I disagree that voiced tone is necessary. My imagination has done fine filling the gaps thus far.

If others have a harder time of it, I can understand them preferring VOs.

I'm talking about the tone itself, though.

Ok, here I want to clarify something. It's not the emotion conveyed in VOs that I'm opposed to or particularly wanting to imagine but the actual voice itself. Sticking a PC with a set voice is, to me, like forcing them to use a set portrait.

Right, okay, I get that. That's what I was trying to say: that the only thing you can imagine is what the voice sounds like (in terms of the actual sounds, not the content of speech).

I think when we started discussing tone we had different ideas of what sort of tone we meant. I knew you were talking about emotional tone rather than vocals (pitch etc), but I didn't think you thought I was suggesting emotional tone should be the province of the reader/PC. I don't. I think the sound of the voice itself, the pitch and depth, timbre and tune, is what should be given to the imagination of the player, just as control of what their character looks like is. (Or we should at least be given a mute button so we're not forced to endure a voice we don't like, or one we think doesn't fit).

Does that make more sense?

(Anyway, I haven't revised this reply. Lunch awaits!)

Yes, it makes perfect sense. I agree with you, and I'd fully support a "mute" button (which, by way of aside, would display the full text). That (IMO) would be a good compromise.