272 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

To be clear -

I think it'd be awesome if they'd take the time and spent the resources to make a "I don't want to be a Warden" dialog option which would then result in a "then off to jail/deep roads/death/being hunted down" with you ending to the game.

Few people would ever take that option knowing it's a dead end and they just spent $50+ on a game they played for an hour and cut themselves off from 90% of the content.

So, while I'd love to see the "you made a bad choice / choice that ended the game story before the resolution" option and consequence in the game, I'm just as willing to accept that if I want to make that "choice" I'm exiting the game / game story as designed, and, hey, there's that perfectly usable "exit game" option in the main menu to get to the end result of my choice.

Long story short - the game developers have a campaign / story to tell. Your PC can choose to NOT follow their story AT ALL, and that's coolio... they aren't going to design content for you to make that choice.

Just like a player in a table-top game can decide his character is not going on the quest to save the princess with the rest of the party and he wants to go to the next kingdom and start a thieves guild. The GM, who has an adventure ready and the rest of the party wanting to go forward, will smile and nod to the player and say "have fun with that" and not run content for one player at the expense of the work he already did and what the rest of the players want to do.

It's no different. Your choices for you character will ALWAYS be limited inside of the story the game / GM wants to tell.

You can role-play your character outside of that. Be prepared for the game / GM to not give you special content for your outside-the-scope-of-the-campaign choices.

[TheStrand221]

I totally agree that, if you want to explore the content of the game, you need to accept the basic story and some of the conceits of the writers. Of course. When you're willing to do this games that have a strict plot with no deviation or story decisions of any kind can still be great fun, though not roleplaying games in most people's sense of the word. The issue with roleplaying games is that many allow you to create your own character to some extent rather than inhabit the role someone has written, and therefore your expectations are higher and limitations are more immersion breaking.

I think what people were taking issue with was the idea that exiting the game after an hour of gameplay to signify making a choice the game prohibits is somehow equivalent to playing through the substantive content created for that choice. As an RP choice, fine, it's equally valid. However many, even most, people play these games to have the opportunity to play through content that reflects their choices.

[MerinTB]

TheStrand221 wrote...
I totally agree that, if you want to explore the content of the game, you need to accept the basic story and some of the conceits of the writers. Of course. When you're willing to do this games that have a strict plot with no deviation or story decisions of any kind can still be great fun, though not roleplaying games in most people's sense of the word. The issue with roleplaying games is that many allow you to create your own character to some extent rather than inhabit the role someone has written, and therefore your expectations are higher and limitations are more immersion breaking.

I think what people were taking issue with was the idea that exiting the game after an hour of gameplay to signify making a choice the game prohibits is somehow equivalent to playing through the substantive content created for that choice. As an RP choice, fine, it's equally valid. However many, even most, people play these games to have the opportunity to play through content that reflects their choices.

I agree with you.

And I have never, ever done what I was describing.  I accept that I'm quite limited in a video game, and often choices are not available.  I've never "my character retires" exit game'd.  I've stopped playing because I wasn't having fun.

But it's still valid.  What Sylvius did, even if 99% of players would never do it, is still valid.

---

Trying to get more on topic, DA2 was worse than ME in the sense that, with ambient dialog and cut scenes and paraphrases and voice protagonist, the game did it's best to remind me that Hawke was NOT my character by constantly having him (or her) say and do things that the character I was trying to play just wouldn't do.

[Kail Ashton]

It's a video game, your motivation is to beat it same applies to the story, you go threw it as motivation to see how it ends (poorly in DA2's case)

Really doesn't require a deep rooted life imersion, i don't read a book and get pissed cause i did't feel like i was actually geting eaten by a dragon, it's for enjoyment & entertainment, not replacing your dull life with, reality check it people

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Perhaps to you and MerinTB.

To me the distinction is self-evident.

No distinction is self-evident.  Saying that something is self-evident is equivalent to saying either that you won't deign to share your point of view, or that you can't justify your point of view.

Nothing is self-evident.

TheStrand221 wrote...

What the hell is arbitrary about a distinction between an interface used to load game files, manage video options, etc. and the actual "playable" portion of the game where the content is? There is nothing arbitrary about that at all.

What's arbitrary is the definition of "playable" you just used.

TheStrand221 wrote...

I think what people were taking issue with was the idea that exiting the game after an hour of gameplay to signify making a choice the game prohibits is somehow equivalent to playing through the substantive content created for that choice. As an RP choice, fine, it's equally valid. However many, even most, people play these games to have the opportunity to play through content that reflects their choices.

I'm trying to highlight what I think is an even more important distinction, which Merin just touched on.

There's an important difference, I think, between a choice you can make but the game does not model, and a choice you cannot make.  DA2 is rife with failings on both counts.

Because of the voiced PC, modelled events are dramatically limited compared to a game without a voiced PC.  Hawke can only say anything in one specific way, and then the game reacts.  Without the voice, the player could impart a different delivery on the line, and then see the subsequent reaction.  the reaction would be the same regardless of the tone, but from an in-character perspective those alternate realities aren't available for comparison.

Because of the paraphrases, the actual content of the choices available to the player are hidden, so the player cannot know what he is choosing.  This actually prevents the player from choosing actions at all, which is far worse than simply not modelling the results of choices.

The player can choose to have Hawke not respond to Meredith's letter.  This does end the game prematurely, but the choice is available.  But the player cannot choose to have Hawke say a particular thing, or say it in a particular way, because the game hides Hawke's possible actions from the player even as the player is asked to select among them.

The paraphrase + voice combination needs to go away.  It is an unmitigated disaster.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 octobre 2011 - 05:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Kail Ashton wrote...

It's a video game, your motivation is to beat it :

And this is why I've long argued that CRPGs are not video games, as RPGs do not conform to that definition.

There's no way to win an RPG.

[Yrkoon]

True, you *finish* an RPG, I suppose. The point still stands, tho.   An RPG is a literary journey and your motivation is to reach the end of it.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 27 octobre 2011 - 06:43 .

[Merci357]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Kail Ashton wrote...

It's a video game, your motivation is to beat it :

And this is why I've long argued that CRPGs are not video games, as RPGs do not conform to that definition.

There's no way to win an RPG.

Evidently CRPGs are video game. All off them offer a story arc, and all of them expect you to reach to conclusion of said arc. They only difference is, the good ones offer enough space to find your own motivations to progress, and the world state reacts to your choices and actions.

That said, on a general curious note, have you played New Vegas, or will you try Skyrim? In my view those open world games should cater infinitely more to your tastes, Sylvius. At least there you are free to ignore the narrative, and still have tons of content to explore. Silent PC w/o paraphrasing as an added bonus.

[TheStrand221]

There is nothing arbitrary about the distinction between a menu system of a computer program designed by human beings to facilitate the proper functioning of the program and preferences, vice the content of the specific program. You clearly don't understand what the word arbitrary means.

But really, the point is moot. The thing is Sylvius, you don't need to keep explaining yourself over and over. You don't have a subtle insight into RPGs that nobody else understands. Everyone comprehends exactly what you mean, they just want to play something else. They want an RPG "Game" not whatever it is you want. People enjoy, and want more, reactive content. You aren't convincing anybody. Your preference is niche, and I suggest you spend more time finding non-game RPGs that you enjoy rather than hanging around here and acting smug. We're not impressed.

God Bioware forums are boring... it's been the same **** for years and years. Nevermind. I'm out.

[JaegerBane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Kail Ashton wrote...

It's a video game, your motivation is to beat it :

And this is why I've long argued that CRPGs are not video games, as RPGs do not conform to that definition.

There's no way to win an RPG.

Sylvius, no offence, but this is blatant nonsense. Sure, there's no way to 'win' the controls and the format of a game, but its quite possible to 'win' a campaign, as evidenced by the ending - and the campaign is precisely what is being discussed here.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Perhaps to you and MerinTB.

To me the distinction is self-evident.

No distinction is self-evident.  Saying that something is self-evident is equivalent to saying either that you won't deign to share your point of view, or that you can't justify your point of view.

It's the former.  Because I get the feeling that - once again - arguing this topic at this time would be pointless and demand more effort than I care to exert on the subject.

Suffice to say there are people who think the idea of equating the game menu with the game proper is absurd on its face.  There are others who think such a distinction is arbitrary and are incredulous anyone would draw such a line. 

I don't expect anyone will be convincing anyone.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 04:43 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Perhaps to you and MerinTB.

To me the distinction is self-evident.

No distinction is self-evident.  Saying that something is self-evident is equivalent to saying either that you won't deign to share your point of view, or that you can't justify your point of view.

It's the former.  Because I get the feeling that - once again - arguing this topic at this time would be pointless and demand more effort than I care to exert on the subject.

Suffice to say there are people who think the idea of equating the game menu with the game proper is absurd on its face.  There are others who think such a distinction is arbitrary and are incredulous anyone would draw such a line. 

I don't expect anyone will be convincing anyone.

I'm sure there are people who would like to roleplay a Warden or Hawke with progressively bad eyesight, and thus gradually turn the game's gamma very low, reduce the resolution to its minimum, and set all of the graphics quality settings to the lowest possible over time.

[upsettingshorts]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm sure there are people who would like to roleplay a Warden or Hawke with progressively bad eyesight, and thus gradually turn the game's gamma very low, reduce the resolution to its minimum, and set all of the graphics quality settings to the lowest possible over time.

And none of these people would be third person gamers.  I imagine even most first person gamers would think, "Really?"  But then I speak even less for them than I do the former group.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 05:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yrkoon wrote...

True, you *finish* an RPG, I suppose. The point still stands, tho.   An RPG is a literary journey and your motivation is to reach the end of it.

My motivation is to play my character well.  Yes, that will ultimately lead to the end of his story, but that story might end at a place different from the one you experience.

DA2 is an excellent example of this.  My character's story ended near the beginning of Act III because there were no more in-character options available to her.  I've also described in great detail how my favourite DAO charater died long before he ever faced an archdemon.  I have no idea whether the Blight was defeated in that version of Ferelden, because the game didn't model that outcome.

Merci357 wrote...

Evidently CRPGs are video game. All off them offer a story arc, and all of them expect you to reach to conclusion of said arc.

I fail to see why the presence of a story arc is relevant to the "video game" designation, nor do I concede that this supposed "expectation" is extant within the game's content.

That said, on a general curious note, have you played New Vegas, or will you try Skyrim? In my view those open world games should cater infinitely more to your tastes, Sylvius. At least there you are free to ignore the narrative, and still have tons of content to explore. Silent PC w/o paraphrasing as an added bonus.

In my experience, Bethesda doesn't do a great job of world building.  Things don't exist for any reason other than to offer the player something to do.  BioWare has traditionally been much better at this aspect of world building than Bethesda.

Also, I dislike action combat, and Skyrim certainly has that.  So does New Vegas.  I found FO3 fun to play, largely because the action parts of combat were optional, but for some reason Obsidian decided that players using VATS for everything wasn't acceptable, so New Vegas requires more action gameplay than FO3 did.

I also object to Bethesda's use of Steamworks as DRM.  Not letting me manage my own patching is a frightful limitation of my ability to use the software as I see fit.

That said, I will probably try Skyrim, but I don't expect it to hold my interest for long.  I actually expect more of KoA Reckoning, despite its God of War pretensions.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm sure there are people who would like to roleplay a Warden or Hawke with progressively bad eyesight, and thus gradually turn the game's gamma very low, reduce the resolution to its minimum, and set all of the graphics quality settings to the lowest possible over time.

And none of these people would be third person gamers.  I imagine even most first person gamers would think, "Really?"  But then I speak even less for them than I do the former group.

Though that's not far different from my desire to disable Depth of Field effects in cutscenes, to prevent the game from telling me what details of the scene are important.

So I'm certainly sympathetic to the position.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Suffice to say there are people who think the idea of equating the game menu with the game proper is absurd on its face. 

They can think that all they want, but that doesn't make it true.  That's just not how absurdity works.

You're framing this as though it's a simple difference of opinion, rather than a glaring logical error.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 octobre 2011 - 06:31 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're framing this as though it's a simple difference of opinion, rather than a glaring logical error.

I'll use an analogy.

There's a difference between filling up your car with gas, getting in, adjusting your seat and wheel for comfort, and turning the ignition from actually driving the car.  

Until you've started the engine, put the car into gear, and pushed a pedal, you are not driving.  You are preparing to drive. 

Same difference for me with menus and the game.  I'd argue the distinction between the game menu and the game proper is even more excplicit than in my analogy. 

I'd also dispute that your logic is authoritative.  It is as biased by your perspective and values as mine is.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 07:09 .

[Gunderic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

But it does support it.  You can stop playing with that character, or playing the game entirely.

"You can stop playing" is not support in my book, and no argument will ever convince me otherwise.  It's the opposite of support.

Hit escape.  A game menu comes up.

The game menu isn't part of "the game."  It's basically a launcher.  This is also related to why I don't care if a GUI looks like parchment in a medieval fantasy game, for example.

Here's one:  An alternative game-over.   If there isn't one, it's not support.  

this.

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Suffice to say there are people who think the idea of equating the game menu with the game proper is absurd on its face.  There are others who think such a distinction is arbitrary and are incredulous anyone would draw such a line.

There are people who refuse to think of FFXIII as a game at all, or Farmville.  They can refuse all they want, but they are not final arbiters of what is a game.

The game menu you get when you hit escape lists several things that are, clearly, reactive parts of the game.  Character, Inventory, Map...

If the Game Menu is not the game proper, then any of those options (with the possible exception of Resume, which can really be seen as "get back to the game" and not a game option as well) shouldn't be considered part of the game proper.

But I doubt you are arguing the inventory screen isn't part of the game proper.  It's a game mechanic for handling your items and their storage.  IRL your character would be pulling items out of pockets or dumping out his back pack, but in game mechanics you have a UI with slots and categories and such.

Just like the Inventory is representive UI for handling your character's items in an RP way, so two can the Exit Game button be used as a "my character quits adventuring" option.

It's not deep philosophy, nor algebra.  It's a game mechanic that can reacts to you selecting it that can easily be incoporated as role-playing.

No game system has rules for everything... and in some role-playing games, for some RPG'ers, the best parts happen outside the margins of the game content.  Or outside the gaming sessions at the table for D&D, without other players or the DM present.

Just like (in analogy) the gutters on comic books are arguably the most important parts of sequential art.  If you don't understand what I mean, go pick up some Scott McCloud books on understanding comics.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I don't expect anyone will be convincing anyone.

Only if people remain adamant in their views and don't listen to the other side.

As I have stated, I don't play the way Sylvius is arguing - that if my character dies I'm happy that the story is over, or that finding nothing that feels in-character for my character to do anymore means I should stop playing.

But his arguments make sense to me, and I agree with them.

I was convinced, and I'm arguing for his view as being valid.  It's not MY view, but it is legitimately A view.

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...

The game menu you get when you hit escape lists several things that are, clearly, reactive parts of the game.  Character, Inventory, Map...

Whoa whoa whoa.  Are we talking about Character, Inventory, and Map or SAVE LOAD AND QUIT?  Because you explicitly stated the latter.

MerinTB wrote...

If the Game Menu is not the game proper, then any of those options (with the possible exception of Resume, which can really be seen as "get back to the game" and not a game option as well) shouldn't be considered part of the game proper.

You can describe the in-character equivalent of the inventory.  "The character is taking things out of or putting things into his bag of holding"

You cannot describe the in-character equivalent of save, load, and quit without metaphysics, time travel, or the hand of God.  They are seperate from the game, the characters have no idea whatsoever that the game menu or what it does even exists.

MerinTB wrote...

Just like the Inventory is representive UI for handling your character's items in an RP way, so two can the Exit Game button be used as a "my character quits adventuring" option.

It's not deep philosophy, nor algebra.  It's a game mechanic that can
reacts to you selecting it that can easily be incoporated as
role-playing.

I disagree. It's not that I question that you or Sylvius can reasonably see it that way.

All I said, and this is the key, is that unless the game reacts to my adventurer quitting the game within the game I do not consider the choice supported or worth taking.  It is fundamentally contradictory to why I play cRPGs.

MerinTB wrote...

I was convinced, and I'm arguing for his view as being valid.  It's not MY view, but it is legitimately A view.

And I felt the same when Sylvius responded to my description of the value of reactivity with "we want different games."

We do.

That you or Sylvius or anyone else considers something a part of the game, or values something I don't, has precisely zero impact on what I want from the very same games.  Sometimes, I can relate to certain desires on some level.  Other times - like, "Quitting the game equals support" I cannot relate to at all because they are absolutely, one-hundred percent, and without question antithetical to the very basis of my enjoyment of the whole exercise.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 07:23 .

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

The game menu you get when you hit escape lists several things that are, clearly, reactive parts of the game.  Character, Inventory, Map...

Whoa whoa whoa.  Are we talking about Character, Inventory, and Map or SAVE LOAD AND QUIT?  Because you explicitly stated the latter.

Uhm, no I didn't.

My initial statement was -
"Hit escape.  A game menu comes up.  One of the options is either Exit Game or Quit Game (I forget which it is for Origins ATM.)"

Now I just booted up Origins to double check and, lo and behold, that isn't the screen with Character and Inventory and Map.  As I had said, I didn't remember what Origins had.

But DA2, which I am currently playing... that's where you hit Escape and you bring up Character, Inventory, Map, etc.

So I never said SAVE nor LOAD.  You inferred it.  And I was wrong about what Origins has for the Escape menu, so there's that.

It doesn't much change my point - if you are playing the game, you hit a button, and a bunch of options pop up - the game (program) is reacting to you selection.  But that's neither here nor there.

In DA2, Escape brings up the list that includes Character, Inventory, Map.  It's what I was currently playing and I forgot what Origin's Escape menu was like.  It is still exactly valid for DA2, then, as I stated initially.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
That you or Sylvius or anyone else considers something a part of the game, or values something I don't, has precisely zero impact on what I want from the very same games.  Sometimes, I can relate to certain desires on some level.  Other times - like, "Quitting the game equals support" I cannot relate to at all because they are absolutely, one-hundred percent, and without question antithetical to the very basis of my enjoyment of the whole exercise.

Then you and I shouldn't be debating.  I don't consider "Exit Game" to be relevant to my character in game, either.  It's not antithetical to me or anything, but it's not how I play.  I take the limitations of each game I play as they stand and see how much enjoyment I can get out of them.

The difference here, in the end, isn't about the two of you arguing "this is blue" "no this is purple!", but "Breakfast is eggs or cereal or a muffin" and "I don't eat breakfast."

[upsettingshorts]

MerinTB wrote...
Uhm, no I didn't.

My initial statement was -
"Hit escape.  A game menu comes up.  One of the options is either Exit Game or Quit Game (I forget which it is for Origins ATM.)"

Right, you did.  The main menu.  Not the inventory.  I am drawing a distinction between options that clearly reflect ingame realities (like, the character screen) and what I consider a launcher (New Game, Resume, Save, Load, Quit)

But no, we ought not be arguing.  The reason I take an unusually blunt stance with Sylvius is that genuine discussions can get far too involved for my liking, and I'd rather head off obvious-instances-of-irreconcilable differences at the pass.  I've gotten kinda used to recognizing them.  They don't bother me as such, just... effort I don't want to expend in what I believe will be a futile exercise.

That doesn't mean every issue.  Just ones like these.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 08:56 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'll use an analogy.

There's a difference between filling up your car with gas, getting in, adjusting your seat and wheel for comfort, and turning the ignition from actually driving the car.  

Until you've started the engine, put the car into gear, and pushed a pedal, you are not driving.  You are preparing to drive. 

Sure.  But I think you're defining "operating a motor vehicle" as "driving" and denying the existence of any other possible definition.

It's that denial that I think is the problem.  All definitions are arbitrary, and as such the definitions can't bring prescriptive force to bear upon people's actions. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

The difference here, in the end, isn't about the two of you arguing "this is blue" "no this is purple!", but "Breakfast is eggs or cereal or a muffin" and "I don't eat breakfast."

That's an excellent analogy.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

The difference here, in the end, isn't about the two of you arguing "this is blue" "no this is purple!", but "Breakfast is eggs or cereal or a muffin" and "I don't eat breakfast."

That's an excellent analogy.

I really don't see how it is. 

It'd be more like Sylvius likes to have something for breakfast I can't taste.  And there are aspects of my breakfast that he can appreciate, but could and often does do without - which for me would be coffee.  I need coffee. 

Sylvius doesn't appreciate reactivity the same way I do, I don't appreciate agency the same way he does.  That's all it really seems to break down to.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 octobre 2011 - 09:18 .

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

The difference here, in the end, isn't about the two of you arguing "this is blue" "no this is purple!", but "Breakfast is eggs or cereal or a muffin" and "I don't eat breakfast."

That's an excellent analogy.

Thank you.  I'm so used to being (wrongly) told that my analogies are false it's nice to get some praise for one.

In particular, I do think it's quite apt.