87 réponses à ce sujet

[eroeru]

@highcastle

Once again you make quite the valid argument.
But it is probable that this "what makes us human" thing varies with every person and different cultures ... *scratches head*

(edited some foggy language-use)

Modifié par eroeru, 26 août 2011 - 04:01 .

[highcastle]

@eroeru: Absolutely. I got a bit hyperbolic. What I should have said was, what makes a character human and insresting and engaging to me (and me only) is some level of emotional response to the events around them. And in return, I want those feelings acknowledged by the other characters, the way most people in reality would recognize the distress or elation of a close friend or compatriot or family member.

[Charons Regale]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

the problem is for players like me...when i play bioware games im not really imagining "my player was this" and "my player was that" cause it is hard to see the effects of your imagination. It's like the more you are imagining the more the choices branch out to more of your imagination and you are creating all this imagination with no effects to it physically...import saves are also based on imagination to a certain degree thus your imagination is working parallel to the original content. The only reason i play bioware games is because...i like a good story...bioware stories are amongst the best in the video game world. David gaider has done a good job. E.G with dragon age 2.....i was not worried whether i get to choose origin or not , i just wanted to hear the tale and the different variations

This^, but when I have said it essentially in the same way, I got flamed for it on another forum. I like the idea of a blank slate, but my only experience with that would be KoTOR, and that was actually my first ever RPG. Dragon Age has really gotten me into RPGs more than anything. DA2 was tops for me .

[maxernst]

highcastle wrote...

eroeru wrote...


edit note:

The problem I had with DAO was that the things I thought mattered were those the game never acknowledged, and thus I felt like I'd "chosen wrong" or "misunderstood the character." Let me give a specific example. In the human noble origin, Cousland loses his entire family. This seemed like a pretty big moment. We saw an innocent child dead on the floor and left our parents to die. Wow. That's the sort of thing to leave a big impression on a character. And yet, after Ostagar, it's never mentioned again. Oh, there are a few throwaway lines, but the impact of this event is largely ignored in preference for the Blight.

So if RPed a character who loved his family and wanted to go find Fergus and kill Howe before he reached Denerim, too bad. I couldn't even express these emotions in the game. Cousland stood around largely stoic and just went about his business as a Warden. The game invalidated the feelings I had by not allowing me to express them. I felt as though I'd missed the point. And maybe I had. The game was an epic. It was supposed to be about defeating an ancient evil. But the things I personal relate to are not necessarily the "save the world at any cost" moments, but the smaller ones.

But I found that problem even more glaring in DA2.  Bethany is taken off to the Circle and then Merrill asks about her once and Ganelon says he'll tell her when Mom dies.  Hawke goes to the gallows courtyard and never asks the other mages or Templars about her.  When Anders discovers the plot to make all the mages tranquil, Hawke never expresses any concern about Bethany.  When he finally sees her again at the end of Act 2, there's practically no response.  It's impossible in DA2 to roleplay a Hawke who gives a damn about her when he behaves like that.

[highcastle]

@Maxernst: I RP only mages, so I can't speak to Bethany. I know with Carver in the wardens, though, the topic comes up in a letter, in a conversation with Varric, another with Leandra, one with Gamlen, and it's all over the place in Legacy. I never forgot that my character had a brother who was in the Wardens.

Plus, you have that wonderful scene when Hawke gives Leandra the news and she just crumpled and Hawke comforts her. It's emotional and heartbreaking and made a huge impression. Plus, there are the time skips. In three years, some of the rawness of those initial losses will have faded. In DAO, there's nothing to blunt the pain. Those losses are fresh, but they're ignored all the same, which makes the lack of even small references stand out even more.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]highcastle wrote...

How do emotions break your design for a character?[/quote]
By being the wrong emotions.  Why does the Warden look aghast when Daveth and Jory die?  What if your Warden design wouldn't have done so?  Sorry, the cinematics just broke your character.
[quote]The player still has agency in how those emotions are expressed and what precisely they are. In the post-Malcolm's Will conversation, there's a range of emotions Hawke can express. But the fact that he has them to begin with, that's a good thing. It makes him human. If he just stood there all stoic like the Warden during the Sacred Ashes quest, it would have been broken. It wouldn't have been believable. Haweke would have been reduced to an avatar instead of a character.[/quote]
I don't dispute that your character should be allowed to express emotions.  My complaint is when your character is forced to express emotions.

But in these new cinematic games, the designers have to choose whether to express and emotion, and what that emotion will be, and that's a problem.  We were better off before we got cinematic dialogue.
[quote]Reacting emotionally to a family is the whole reason you include familial relationships at all. Without emotion, those people might as well be strangers. Our relationships with people we love and are close to define us as who we are.[/quote]
What if we don't love them?  We were told explicitly during DA2's development that Hawke would not be forced to love his family.  So why are his emotional reactions pre-written?
[quote]For Hawke to just stand their blankly as everyone else emotes would mean he's emotionally dead inside or perhaps catatonic. I don't have any desire to play such a character.[/quote]
So don't.  As you say, if the Warden isn't experiencing emotion, that's your fault.  The population of the PC's mind is the player's primary job in an RPG.  What does the PC want?  How does the PC feel?  Those are the things over which you, the player, can have total control in DAO.

But not DA2.  You can't control Hawke's desires or emotions in DA2 because they're decided for you by the cinematics.
[quote]That Hawke was a mystery to you is entirely your fault. DA2, for all the protest otherwise, is still an RPG. Much of Hawke's back story is left up to you to define.[/quote]
But Hawke's behaviour isn't.  Too often, Hawke behaved in a way that was inconsistent with my design, or even ran directly contrary to my immediate preferences.  That's why Hawke is a mystery to me.  I cannot explain why she behaves as she does because her behaviour is effectively random.
[quote]Think of it as a challenge: how would the character you want to play fit into the family we have in front of us? What would have happened to them to make them a certain way, give them a specific personality, drive them to blood magic or templar arts or whatever?  Those are enough blank spots to RP specific motivations.[/quote]
[/quote]
Except the dialogue system than contradicts me.  If I define Hawke as being someone who doesn't hate slavers, and instead views them simply as businesspeople, why then does Hawke sneer at them and say "Get out of my sight!" when I choose to let them live.  The choice was presented only as let them live or kill them, and the game inserted the motives itself without consulting the player at all.  Why did Hawke sneer at the slavers?  Hawke doesn't view the slavers as his concern.  Hawke is indifferent to the slavers (in fact, she likes these slavers because they just made a deal with her), and yet the game makes Hawke sneer at them.

Making Hawke's behaviour explicit on screen without having the player choose that behaviour forces the player either to abandon his character design, or to ignore in-screen content.  I think it would be better simply not to have that content, so as to avoid having the designers expect the players to accept it as true.
[quote]Emotions matter. In DAO, the Warden had many problems of a blank slate character because he could conceivably come from any one of 6 backgrounds. But the rest of the story played out the same way, which means though backgrounds didn't actually matter much to the surrounding world. It may have mattered to you, but if the game rejects your interpretation by never addressing it, then it doesn't matter to the game or the characters within it. That's an important distinction I think I failed to mention the first time around. How much do your interpretations and past matter if the game never acknowledges them?[/quote]
The game can only reject my interpretations by contradicting them.  Failure to acknowledge them is not a rejection.  It isn't anything at all.  It's the absence of a thing.  Assuming that my interpretation is incorrect because the game doesn't explicitly confirm it is absurd.

The game's positive acknowledgement is irrelevant.  I already know why my character did what she did.  Why would I need to game to confirm that?  The only acknowledgement that matters is contradiction, and it's something to be avoided.

A blank slate PC isn't going to have emotional ties to her family unless the player decides she does.

[highcastle]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

By being the wrong emotions.  Why does the Warden look aghast when Daveth and Jory die?  What if your Warden design wouldn't have done so?  Sorry, the cinematics just broke your character.

Wow. Never thought I'd hear anyone accuse the Warden of over-emoting before. Okay. Well, in this instance, I think looking a bit shocked is a natual reaction for almost anyone. He didn't know the Joining could kill you. And witnessing death first hand isn't something you normally go through without any reaction at all.

And this is a pretty brief moment. You could even call it an involuntary reaction. A single flinch without input from personality or conscious choice, just a bodily reaction. I still don't see how it ruins a character.

I don't dispute that your character should be allowed to express emotions.  My complaint is when your character is forced to express emotions.

But in these new cinematic games, the designers have to choose whether to express and emotion, and what that emotion will be, and that's a problem.  We were better off before we got cinematic dialogue.

According to you. Hey, I played Baldur's Gate when it first came out. I still have my copy and periodically revisit it. But does that mean such games are the pinacle of the gaming experience? Not in my opinion, no. It was a ripping good yarn with great choices and characters. But cinematics don't destroy these things. We just express them in different ways.

As technology evolves, this art medium evolves with it. And to stand here saying all the best games are in the past ignores the benefits of this technology. We are visual creatures in many ways. Cinematics and art can affect us in ways words cannot. Think about DAO when Riordan proposes making Loghain a Warden. Alistair says nothing, he just arches a single brow. It's a moment that's purely cinematic, but it conveys everything he's feeling anf thinking in one simple gesture. So much of our communication is non-verbal. Cinematic games allow those behavioral cues to be expressed.

What if we don't love them?  We were told explicitly during DA2's development that Hawke would not be forced to love his family.  So why are his emotional reactions pre-written?

And Hawke doesn't have to love his parents. There are plenty of opportunities to mouth off at Gamlen, Leandra, and your sibling. But not getting along with his family and not caring when they die are two different things. Regardless of Hawke's emotions, he still canonically lives with them for most of his life. That's part of his character. Yes, it's defined. And yes, it means he probably doesn't loathe them with every fiber of his being. It falls on you to figure out what the actual details of the relationship are within the parameters BioWare set. Maybe he fought bitterly with his mother and then regretted some of those fights when he held her one last time. Maybe he just hated himself for not stopping Quentin sooner and it had little to do with the mother herself.

What I liked about these particular moments was that the player still had some control over what the emotion was and how it was expressed. BioWare did well with the dominant personality system, and the tone choices in the dialogue options allow for customization and role playing here. Yes, it's conditional. But it makes it more real to me. I'd rather choose how those emotions fit into the character I've crafted than not see any emotions at all.

So don't.  As you say, if the Warden isn't experiencing emotion, that's your fault.  The population of the PC's mind is the player's primary job in an RPG.  What does the PC want?  How does the PC feel?  Those are the things over which you, the player, can have total control in DAO.

But not DA2.  You can't control Hawke's desires or emotions in DA2 because they're decided for you by the cinematics.

Perhaps I hallucinated the dialogue options and the tone choices? Those are emotions. They're in the hands of the player. Yes, the cinematics convey things too. But again, that's to avoid the PC standing there all blank-faced like a blind, deaf, and dumb participent in the theatre of life.

But Hawke's behaviour isn't.  Too often, Hawke behaved in a way that was inconsistent with my design, or even ran directly contrary to my immediate preferences.  That's why Hawke is a mystery to me.  I cannot explain why she behaves as she does because her behaviour is effectively random.

Except the dialogue system than contradicts me.  If I define Hawke as being someone who doesn't hate slavers, and instead views them simply as businesspeople, why then does Hawke sneer at them and say "Get out of my sight!" when I choose to let them live.  The choice was presented only as let them live or kill them, and the game inserted the motives itself without consulting the player at all.  Why did Hawke sneer at the slavers?  Hawke doesn't view the slavers as his concern.  Hawke is indifferent to the slavers (in fact, she likes these slavers because they just made a deal with her), and yet the game makes Hawke sneer at them.

Making Hawke's behaviour explicit on screen without having the player choose that behaviour forces the player either to abandon his character design, or to ignore in-screen content.  I think it would be better simply not to have that content, so as to avoid having the designers expect the players to accept it as true.

No, what the game asks you to do is decide how your character's on-screen reactions match the personality and history you've created. Maybe she sneered because she wants to put up a strong face to people who have already proved to be killers. You seem to be under the impression that if Hawke emotes without your direct control, your concept of the character is ruined forever. Why? Why can't you view it like improv theatre? Roll with the punches, go with what the game gives you and build from there.

The game can only reject my interpretations by contradicting them.  Failure to acknowledge them is not a rejection.  It isn't anything at all.  It's the absence of a thing.  Assuming that my interpretation is incorrect because the game doesn't explicitly confirm it is absurd.

The game's positive acknowledgement is irrelevant.  I already know why my character did what she did.  Why would I need to game to confirm that?  The only acknowledgement that matters is contradiction, and it's something to be avoided.

A blank slate PC isn't going to have emotional ties to her family unless the player decides she does.

Have you ever heard of the "looking glass self?" It's a sociological theory as to how we view ourselves. To make a long theory short, it basically says "I am what I think you think I am." It says we define ourselves based on what we think other people think about us. So in that way, we look to others for validation. So yes, we need positiv reinforcement from other NPCs. Why? Because without it, our characters aren't anything but empty vessels. They have no meaning, no substance.

I don't care as much about the contradictions, because I like many people don't have a firm idea that I--or my character--is one thing and one thing only. We often have many personality traits that we turn on and off depending on the company we're in. So if Hawke or another character does something unexpected, I just think to myself why it may have occured. I edit my perception of the character, learn some new facet about them, or flesh out their back story a bit more. 

But that's just me. Clearly we play games in different ways, and I think it's best we agree to disagree.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Focusing on a backstory for the player character is only necessary in a story where there is a focus of extreme importance on that character, making them super human or special to the main plot.

Plots can be made where characters have a blank slate and the player choices make the player character pivotal to the main plot. I honestly would prefer this kind of story with a blank past, because some set characters I just can't get into due to a lack of development or a lack of interest in the character on my part.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]highcastle wrote...



Wow. Never thought I'd hear anyone accuse the Warden of over-emoting before. Okay. Well, in this instance, I think looking a bit shocked is a natual reaction for almost anyone. He didn't know the Joining could kill you.[/quote]
He may have.  Duncan's remarks on the topic were fairly clear.  Again, it should be up the the player to decide what it is the PC knows.
[quote]And witnessing death first hand isn't something you normally go through without any reaction at all.[/quote]
Both elven origins are likely to have seen death a fair amount - particulary the Dalish - the Human Noble had to kill dozens of people to get through his origin story, and Dwarves are killing each other constantly in Orzammar.  The Warden almost had to have seen death quite a bit before the Joining.
[quote]I still don't see how it ruins a character.[/quote]
It's the principle.  Some cinematic designers decided to have the Warden display an emotion regardless of the player's preference.  It's a symptom of poor design philosophy.
[quote]According to you. Hey, I played Baldur's Gate when it first came out. I still have my copy and periodically revisit it. But does that mean such games are the pinacle of the gaming experience?[/quote]
Overall?  No.  But aspects of it have yet to be surpassed.
[quote]As technology evolves, this art medium evolves with it. And to stand here saying all the best games are in the past ignores the benefits of this technology. We are visual creatures in many ways. Cinematics and art can affect us in ways words cannot. Think about DAO when Riordan proposes making Loghain a Warden. Alistair says nothing, he just arches a single brow. It's a moment that's purely cinematic, but it conveys everything he's feeling anf thinking in one simple gesture.[/quote]
I have no idea what Alistair is thinking when he arches his brow.  Furthermore, I have no reason to believe that he always means the same thing when he does it.

Regardless, I never noticed it.  I rarely watch the cinematics beyond reading through the subtitles.  Also, I don't think body language conveys reliable information, so I wouldn't have inferred anything from the eyebrow even if I had noticed it.
[quote]And Hawke doesn't have to love his parents. There are plenty of opportunities to mouth off at Gamlen, Leandra, and your sibling. But not getting along with his family and not caring when they die are two different things.[/quote]
Yes, and not caring when they die is a perfectly reasonable reaction, particularly on a character-by-character basis.  My current Hawke despises Carver.  She sees him as whiny and pathetic and is embarrassed to be associated with him.  But she also doesn't trust him not to stab her in the back, so she keeps him where she can watch him.
[quote]Regardless of Hawke's emotions, he still canonically lives with them for most of his life. That's part of his character. Yes, it's defined. And yes, it means he probably doesn't loathe them with every fiber of his being.[/quote]
And if Hawke comes to loathe them with every fibre of his being, what then?  I would then need to retcon in an explanation that somehow didn't contradict any aspect of Hawke's prior behaviour or motives (or I would need to retcon those motives, too).

That's a nearly impossible task.  It would be easier to restart the game every time that occured in an attempt to avoid that sort of character-breaking scenario.
[quote]Perhaps I hallucinated the dialogue options and the tone choices?[/quote]
There are no dialogue options in DA2.  You never know what Hawke is going to say until after he says it.

And the tone choices are limited to just those three (unlike DAO, where you had an effectively infinite selection) and ties to specific responses (which, again, are hidden from you).  So, if you want an aggressive response, you're limited to that specific aggressive response they've written, regardless of what it says.  And if you want a condescending response, you're just out of luck, because there isn't one.

How is this better?
[quote]Those are emotions. They're in the hands of the player. Yes, the cinematics convey things too. But again, that's to avoid the PC standing there all blank-faced like a blind, deaf, and dumb participent in the theatre of life.[/quote]
The other way to avoid that would be not to show the PC during those segments.
[quote]No, what the game asks you to do is decide how your character's on-screen reactions match the personality and history you've created. Maybe she sneered because she wants to put up a strong face to people who have already proved to be killers. You seem to be under the impression that if Hawke emotes without your direct control, your concept of the character is ruined forever. Why? Why can't you view it like improv theatre? Roll with the punches, go with what the game gives you and build from there. [/quote]
Because, as I've explained, I would need to retcon that personality trait into the whole of the PC's past behaviour.  If Hawke is suddenly concerned with appearances, why didn't she act in accordance with that preference earlier?  If Hawke does genuinely dislike slavers, why didn't Hawke just kill them instead of letting them go?  If Hawke feels threatened by these easily cowed slavers, how is it she was brave all of those other times she was brave?

There is no way to insert those explanations into her past behaviour and have them make sense.  Try it.  Keep a long of every decision Hawke makes, and the reasons behind it, and then reconcile those with these constant retcons you advocate.
[quote]Have you ever heard of the "looking glass self?" It's a sociological theory as to how we view ourselves. To make a long theory short, it basically says "I am what I think you think I am." It says we define ourselves based on what we think other people think about us. So in that way, we look to others for validation.[/quote]
1. Sociology is bunk.  It's an entire field that supposedly studies society, except society doesn't exist, thus rendering any study of it demonstrably nonsensical.

2. Who are these subnormal people who need validation from others to tell them who they are?
[quote]So yes, we need positiv reinforcement from other NPCs. Why? Because without it, our characters aren't anything but empty vessels. They have no meaning, no substance. [/quote]
They have meaning and substance because we grant them meaning and substance.  It's exactly the same way you have meaning or substance.  Who you are, what you do, and why you do it - that's what gives you meaning or substance (assuming anything does - whether people even have meaning or substance is a matter of considerable philosophical debate).
[quote]I don't care as much about the contradictions, because I like many people don't have a firm idea that I--or my character--is one thing and one thing only. We often have many personality traits that we turn on and off depending on the company we're in. So if Hawke or another character does something unexpected, I just think to myself why it may have occured. I edit my perception of the character, learn some new facet about them, or flesh out their back story a bit more.[/quote]
You can't edit your perception of the character without invalidating every prior choice that character has made.

[highcastle]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

1. Sociology is bunk.  It's an entire field that supposedly studies society, except society doesn't exist, thus rendering any study of it demonstrably nonsensical.

Well, you've now lost any credibility you may have had with me. Between this and your dismissal of nonverbal communication, I really don't have anything to say to you that I think you'd listen to. That you're not watching the cinematics for anything but the subtitles, though, says to me you're missing out on a big part of this game. And that's a shame, because the devs are doing some great things with the cinematics. But you have to have a basic understanding of both human behavior to appreciate them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

highcastle wrote...

That you're not watching the cinematics for anything but the subtitles, though, says to me you're missing out on a big part of this game.

It's a part of the game I don't want, as it's a part of the game completely lacking in player agency.

There's a credible argument to be made that, because it lacks player agency, it isn't part of the game at all.

I'd also like to point out that you completely avoided my claim that society doesn't exist, from which the pointlessnes of sociology is a trivial conclusion.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

If the cinematics limit a ton of other player freedoms to sculpt a character from their imagination, then I can do without them.

If I want cinema, I'll watch a movie. Video games are for creative interaction to me.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

highcastle wrote...

But Hawke's behaviour isn't.  Too often, Hawke behaved in a way that was inconsistent with my design, or even ran directly contrary to my immediate preferences.  That's why Hawke is a mystery to me.  I cannot explain why she behaves as she does because her behaviour is effectively random.

Except the dialogue system than contradicts me.  If I define Hawke as being someone who doesn't hate slavers, and instead views them simply as businesspeople, why then does Hawke sneer at them and say "Get out of my sight!" when I choose to let them live.  The choice was presented only as let them live or kill them, and the game inserted the motives itself without consulting the player at all.  Why did Hawke sneer at the slavers?  Hawke doesn't view the slavers as his concern.  Hawke is indifferent to the slavers (in fact, she likes these slavers because they just made a deal with her), and yet the game makes Hawke sneer at them.

Making Hawke's behaviour explicit on screen without having the player choose that behaviour forces the player either to abandon his character design, or to ignore in-screen content.  I think it would be better simply not to have that content, so as to avoid having the designers expect the players to accept it as true.

No, what the game asks you to do is decide how your character's on-screen reactions match the personality and history you've created. Maybe she sneered because she wants to put up a strong face to people who have already proved to be killers. You seem to be under the impression that if Hawke emotes without your direct control, your concept of the character is ruined forever. Why? Why can't you view it like improv theatre? Roll with the punches, go with what the game gives you and build from there.

Improvisational Theatre? How do how do you propose to build something that you can't understand as it doesn't react in a manner that you can understand in the first place?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 28 août 2011 - 11:32 .