132 réponses à ce sujet

[eroeru]

Theagg wrote...

I probably can't help feeling this way as I just love envisaging vectors, trajectories and velocities of moving objects in relation to the targets movements (which, of course, should be limited by the targets dexterity and gear worn/carried !  Low dexterity = not so fleet of foot)

But that's just me

I do imagine that it can be enjoyable, though certainly not my preference. If DA3 would incorporate a more "responsive" environment, and does it well, it should be a good thing for any player, thumbs up. Though I do doubt in Bioware's know-how.

But I really miss DA:O sense of real danger, real grotesque and play-your-cards-type strategy. As much as I do so, it must be said that these preferences - most importantly strategic play - do not absolutely exclude tactical character-positioning. So in the end your suggestions play out as good, imo. :happy:

Modifié par eroeru, 07 décembre 2011 - 10:22 .

[Theagg]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


The only reaon to limit the player's knowledge like that would be if you were trying to have those horror elements frighten the player, and that's wrong-headed.  The player need never be frightened.  As soon as the game is trying to evoke emotional or visceral reactions from the player, the game fails.

It's the character's reactions that matter.  Never the player.  Only the character.

Since you as the player are the character, (you are role playing after all) this statement of yours makes little sense. In fact its the opposite, if the game succeeds in evoking such emotional responses in the player, it has done a good job.

The 'character' devoid of the player cannot have emotional responses because the character devoid of the player does not exist.

Seriously, using your line of reasoning you may as well say that if the game evokes a mental process in you that leads you to make certain choices, or tactical decisions based on your own personal appraisal of the situation, it has failed. It should only be the 'character' who makes those decisions based on their 'feelings'. See how far that gets you..

Modifié par Theagg, 07 décembre 2011 - 11:55 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Theagg wrote...

Seriously, using your line of reasoning you may as well say that if the game evokes a mental process in you that leads you to make certain choices, or tactical decisions based on your own personal appraisal of the situation, it has failed. It should only be the 'character' who makes those decisions based on their 'feelings'. See how far that gets you..

You have just described the Nirvana of meta-gaming.

If that gives you any feeling as to how I feel about meta-gaming.

[Theagg]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Theagg wrote...

Seriously, using your line of reasoning you may as well say that if the game evokes a mental process in you that leads you to make certain choices, or tactical decisions based on your own personal appraisal of the situation, it has failed. It should only be the 'character' who makes those decisions based on their 'feelings'. See how far that gets you..

You have just described the Nirvana of meta-gaming.

If that gives you any feeling as to how I feel about meta-gaming.

Heh, well, the games should just run themselves. Click start, return in 70 hours and see what the outcome was. No chance then of the human player having any 'out of character' reaction at all that might contradict or interfere with the 'characters' in game reactions. Marvellous.

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

You have just described the Nirvana of meta-gaming.

If that gives you any feeling as to how I feel about meta-gaming.

It doesn't.

Personally, I think the meta-game is an important part of role-playing as RPing is a social activity. My bringing Krispy Kreme in an effort to bribe the DM is just as vital as remembering that the local Prince is a Gangrel with an inferiority complex so my Ventrue needs to apply that extra bit of butt-kissing.

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The player need never be frightened.As soon as the game is trying to evoke emotional or visceral reactions from the player, the game fails.

Then you cannot have a dark fantasy game.

The keyword is "trying", i think.

You can certainly have a dark fantasy game which features horror elements and leaves it up to the player's discretion how their character feels about these elements. The game doesn't need to concern itself with whether the player personally gets scared by what's shown to them. For a better idea of what i'm getting at, consider the Cthulhu RPG with its mechanics to keep track of the characters' "sanity score".

It could even be argued trying to scare the player is counter-productive with such setup -- as the scared player will find it harder to make unbiased calls about how the situation affects their character.

Mind you, not saying that you can't make a game with focus on scaring the player at all. A game like that is fine but i'd consider it a separate genre from RPGs. There may be some overleap but it's no different from how modern shooters also have elements of "character progression" and whatnot.

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 décembre 2011 - 08:10 .

[tmp7704]

Theagg wrote...

Heh, well, the games should just run themselves. Click start, return in 70 hours and see what the outcome was. No chance then of the human player having any 'out of character' reaction at all that might contradict or interfere with the 'characters' in game reactions. Marvellous.

That's basically how some people choose to play the Sims -- they set up situations and environments, and let the individual sims' AIs to manage the characters in accordance with their generated 'wishes' and whatnot. The entertainment comes from watching the situations as they develop, not from "leaving and returning in 70 hours". A high-tech equivalent of an ant farm (or your own sitcom) so to speak.

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 décembre 2011 - 08:17 .

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Theagg wrote...

Which is what I meant. You the player decide on an area and mouse to it.. The mechanics then decide how accurate your in game character can get to placing that AoE on the targeted area. Much like in wargaming when using artillery, where you visibly choose an area on the table top but then have to roll to see how close the actual shot is. Then place a template there to see what actually gets hit or not.

But then you're requiring that player skill determine which area is targetted.  Again, the stats are there to deal with that.  If you want to hit a group of people, target the grtoup of people, and then let the stats models whether you succeed.

Ideally, yes, targets that move would be harder to hit, and targets that move unpredictably would be much harder to hit.  But that means you should be calling for improvements to the stat-driven mechanic, not discarding it.

Aiming should never be left up to the player.  The player should be responsible only for target selection.

"The player should never be required for anything. All challenge, and subsequently all entertainent value, should be removed from games entirely".

[philippe willaume]

We can say that a hit determined by a roll of dice in DA, and yes the tracking arrows a bit annoying but it is a side effect of clicking in real time vs. when the hit calculation is made and when the effect is drawn
This is not like Flight simulator or some FSP where hit is determined by collision calculation I.e. collision between the flight path of the bullets and the flight path of the target.
I do not think that is really a problem of player skill vs character skill.
It is more a problem of realtime animation vs animation effect that is separated in time from the hit calculation.

Ie in DA
The bady shoots is bow (calculation says he hits), you see the contrails of the arrow, or you just moved in behind an obstacle.
Because the arrow has a in game time of flight, you will probably move before the animation reach you.
Hence the curved flight path and ability to shoot in the corner.

[philippe willaume]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Theagg wrote...

Which is what I meant. You the player decide on an area and mouse to it.. The mechanics then decide how accurate your in game character can get to placing that AoE on the targeted area. Much like in wargaming when using artillery, where you visibly choose an area on the table top but then have to roll to see how close the actual shot is. Then place a template there to see what actually gets hit or not.

But then you're requiring that player skill determine which area is targetted.  Again, the stats are there to deal with that.  If you want to hit a group of people, target the grtoup of people, and then let the stats models whether you succeed.

Ideally, yes, targets that move would be harder to hit, and targets that move unpredictably would be much harder to hit.  But that means you should be calling for improvements to the stat-driven mechanic, not discarding it.

Aiming should never be left up to the player.  The player should be responsible only for target selection.

"The player should never be required for anything. All challenge, and subsequently all entertainent value, should be removed from games entirely".

Hello
Come on man, that is a little bit harsh
 
He is talking about the player interfacing with the game.
Ie a flight simulator, FSP or brawling game, the skills of the player are the skill of the characters. So how well you fly and and how well you shoot with tools given by the game.
 
In a RPG the skill being used are those of the character.  So it not mater how good you are at shooting as player (ie using the tool given by the game to aim and shoot) what matters is how good with the bow is the character you are playing.
Otherwise the class, skill system is meaningless
 
Now it does not prevent to have interfaces that enable you to simulate the use of a skill by your char. Ie so you as a player can perform the action but the skill of your char needs to be reflected in the difficulty of the task
For example the more skilled you are in lock picking the more attempts you have and/or the more time you have in the simulation.
 
phil

[Theagg]

tmp7704 wrote...

Theagg wrote...

Heh, well, the games should just run themselves. Click start, return in 70 hours and see what the outcome was. No chance then of the human player having any 'out of character' reaction at all that might contradict or interfere with the 'characters' in game reactions. Marvellous.

That's basically how some people choose to play the Sims -- they set up situations and environments, and let the individual sims' AIs to manage the characters in accordance with their generated 'wishes' and whatnot. The entertainment comes from watching the situations as they develop, not from "leaving and returning in 70 hours". A high-tech equivalent of an ant farm (or your own sitcom) so to speak.

And we all know that The Sims is the pinnacle of role playing games.

Which, of course, it isn't. It's a 'life' simulator, so the comparision you are making here isn't a very good one.

[Plaintiff]

philippe willaume wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Theagg wrote...

Which is what I meant. You the player decide on an area and mouse to it.. The mechanics then decide how accurate your in game character can get to placing that AoE on the targeted area. Much like in wargaming when using artillery, where you visibly choose an area on the table top but then have to roll to see how close the actual shot is. Then place a template there to see what actually gets hit or not.

But then you're requiring that player skill determine which area is targetted.  Again, the stats are there to deal with that.  If you want to hit a group of people, target the grtoup of people, and then let the stats models whether you succeed.

Ideally, yes, targets that move would be harder to hit, and targets that move unpredictably would be much harder to hit.  But that means you should be calling for improvements to the stat-driven mechanic, not discarding it.

Aiming should never be left up to the player.  The player should be responsible only for target selection.

"The player should never be required for anything. All challenge, and subsequently all entertainent value, should be removed from games entirely".

Hello
Come on man, that is a little bit harsh
 
He is talking about the player interfacing with the game.
Ie a flight simulator, FSP or brawling game, the skills of the player are the skill of the characters. So how well you fly and and how well you shoot with tools given by the game.
 
In a RPG the skill being used are those of the character.  So it not mater how good you are at shooting as player (ie using the tool given by the game to aim and shoot) what matters is how good with the bow is the character you are playing.
Otherwise the class, skill system is meaningless
 
Now it does not prevent to have interfaces that enable you to simulate the use of a skill by your char. Ie so you as a player can perform the action but the skill of your char needs to be reflected in the difficulty of the task
For example the more skilled you are in lock picking the more attempts you have and/or the more time you have in the simulation.
 
phil

He also doesn't want players to be able to engage emotionally wih the material. I think my summation of his argument is correct.

[tmp7704]

Theagg wrote...

And we all know that The Sims is the pinnacle of role playing games.

Which, of course, it isn't. It's a 'life' simulator, so the comparision you are making here isn't a very good one.

A pinnacle, no. But just stop for a second, and think what exactly it means, to play a character in a game that's a "life simulator"? A character who is different from your real self?

Hint: imagine it's medieval life simulator, instead. With dragons. Reminds you of any game genre, now?

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 décembre 2011 - 12:06 .

[Meris]

Roleplayers are gamers who live of making concessions.

Just as one group doesn't mind inconsistencies with the graphical experience of the game ("Ogres hitting you from across the room"); Another doesn't mind inconsistencies in the relation Combat X In-character. Therefore, bringing up the 'Roleplaying argument' has little odds of succeding: each one of you perceive the needs of the game differently.

If you oppose action elements, you should also bring up an argument of gameplay. Perhaps you oppose action-based elements in a RTS - which is more or less what CRPGs have been for 10 years?

[tmp7704]

Plaintiff wrote...

He also doesn't want players to be able to engage emotionally wih the material. I think my summation of his argument is correct.

No, he doesn't want the game to focus on emotions of the player.

The difference between his stance and your summary is akin to difference between:

"a game should never kill a character to make the player sad" (him) and "a game should never kill a character, period, because the player may feel sad about it" (you).

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 décembre 2011 - 12:11 .

[Theagg]

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

The player need never be frightened.As soon as the game is trying to evoke emotional or visceral reactions from the player, the game fails.

Then you cannot have a dark fantasy game.

The keyword is "trying", i think.

You can certainly have a dark fantasy game which features horror elements and leaves it up to the player's discretion how their character feels about these elements. The game doesn't need to concern itself with whether the player personally gets scared by what's shown to them. For a better idea of what i'm getting at, consider the Cthulhu RPG with its mechanics to keep track of the characters' "sanity score".

It could even be argued trying to scare the player is counter-productive with such setup -- as the scared player will find it harder to make unbiased calls about how the situation affects their character.

Or consider the Cthulhu RPG in this way. You the player are the character, (it's not a simulator after all, it's a role playing game) so the more immersive the game, the better. This includes the ability to scare players.

But a game that actually drives people insane would not market very well.(Never mind being exceptionally hard to achieve) So that little aspect of the Cthulhu universe is 'simulated' for the players benefit. And if this fear affects the ability for the player to make 'unbiased' decisions all the better.

After all, deciding in a cool, rational, unemotional manner how 'fear' should affect the character you are roleplaying (rather than running as a simulation) is hardly unbiased either.

[Fast Jimmy]

tmp7704 wrote...

Theagg wrote...

And we all know that The Sims is the pinnacle of role playing games.

Which, of course, it isn't. It's a 'life' simulator, so the comparision you are making here isn't a very good one.

A pinnacle, no. But just stop for a second, and think what exactly it means, to play a character in a game that's a "life simulator"? A character who is different from your real self?

Hint: imagine it's medieval life simulator, instead. With dragons. Reminds you of any game genre, now?

The Sims Medieval?

[img]%20http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=q3d&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbnid=ZhldR5C0KSiDwM:&imgrefurl=http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sims_Medieval&docid=NDAgcspi_wUgJM&imgurl=http://images.wikia.com/sims/images/b/bb/The-sims-medieval-gets-limited_1.jpg&w=300&h=427&ei=PqzgTuHMNozqggezopCLBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=737&vpy=135&dur=1369&hovh=268&hovw=188&tx=90&ty=120&sig=111708958728491650708&page=1&tbnh=179&tbnw=114&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0&biw=1280&bih=873[/img][img]http://images.wikia.com/sims/images/b/bb/The-sims-medieval-gets-limited_1.jpg[/img]

Certainly not Dragon Age. Or most RPGs.

RPGs are not ant farms to view character interactions based on varying personalities. They are vehicles for telling a story, venues for narrative.

Its the difference between two Saturday afternoon activities - people watching at the mall, or going to see a movie. If you paid money to see a movie and be part of a story, you'd be upset if the entire movie was just someone people watching at a mall, understandably.

EDIT: Had issues with the picture posting.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 08 décembre 2011 - 12:30 .

[tmp7704]

Theagg wrote...

Or consider the Cthulhu RPG in this way. You the player are the character, (it's not a simulator after all, it's a role playing game) so the more immersive the game, the better. This includes the ability to scare players.

Since you aren't the character, if that's supposed to be the reason to try to make the game immersive, that reason is essentially based on false premise.

And if this fear affects the ability for the player to make 'unbiased' decisions all the better.

No. Consider a case where the player is afflicted with arachnophobia, but their character isn't supposed to be. How is it then "all the better" if the player is getting seizures at the thought of facing a giant spider, while their character in this situation would be cool as cucumber and acting rationally?

After all, deciding in a cool, rational, unemotional manner how 'fear' should affect the character you are roleplaying (rather than running as a simulation) is hardly unbiased either.

How is it biased? The simulation you mention as alternative is after all also entirely cool, rational and unemotional. So you trust such simulation to remain unbiased, but the player operating under the same conditions is supposed to have bias? Explain.

[tmp7704]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The Sims Medieval?

Genre, not single title.

But if you bring it up, The Sims Medieval is very much an RPG -- you take role(s) of character(s) perfoming roles in fictional society, running quests, gaining skills and developing in the process.

RPGs are not ant farms to view character interactions based on varying personalities. They are vehicles for telling a story, venues for narrative.

What is a story if not a record of character interactions based on varying personalities?

http://aliceandkev.wordpress.com/

this is a rather famous (on the interwebs at least) story constructed as simple record of viewing the Sims characters interact with one another. If you added to that the quest structure from the Sims Medieval? I'd dare to say the result would be pretty much like reading the plot for your typical RPG, maybe even with richer characers and less pointless filler combat, ironically enough.

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 décembre 2011 - 12:46 .

[Plaintiff]

tmp7704 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

He also doesn't want players to be able to engage emotionally wih the material. I think my summation of his argument is correct.

No, he doesn't want the game to focus on emotions of the player.

The difference between his stance and your summary is akin to difference between:

"a game should never kill a character to make the player sad" (him) and "a game should never kill a character, period, because the player may feel sad about it" (you).

He literally just said that the minute a game evokes an emotional or visceral reaction from a player, it fails. 

However you interpret his statement, it's moronic. Games, like all media, should try to make the player feel something. Their purpose is to entertain, to be entertained we must be able to engage. You might as well say that horror movies shouldn't scare the audience because all that matters is if the characters in the film are afraid. It's utter, utter nonsense.

The whole reason for playing a game is for the emotional responses it evokes from the player. Enjoyment is an emotional repsonse. The emotional response of the audience is the whole point of every book, every film and, yes, every game. Story, character, visuals and gameplay are all subservient to this goal, and causing the player to feel genuinely happy, sad, scared or angry is part of that.

The character's emotional response is irrelevent and separate from that of the player's, the character will feel whatever the plot demands. The two issues don't even intersect, so his argument is senseless.

[Fast Jimmy]

Your above story does not tell the narrative from the viewpoint of the characters, but from an omnipotent third person, who views all and can determine how things in the game are setup up and can impose constraints upon the world.

Is there a name for such a being in video games? Oh yeah... I think they are called PLAYERS. So this entire story, made up entirely by character interactions, is being viewed through the players eyes, where THEY are the ones super imposing emotions, thoughts, conversations and motives.

This is more of a case against the concept that players should distance themselves from their characters, not an argument FOR it.

[tmp7704]

Plaintiff wrote...

He literally just said that the minute a game evokes an emotional or visceral reaction from a player, it fails.

No, he literally said:

"As soon as the game is trying to evoke emotional or visceral reactions from the player, the game fails."

You might as well say that horror movies shouldn't scare the audience because all that matters is if the characters in the film are afraid. It's utter, utter nonsense.

It is indeed utter nonsense because you're purposefully mixing apples and oranges. When you watch the movie you're expected to at best experience the events, not guide the characters in the manner you think they should behave.

The whole reason for playing a game is for the emotional responses it evokes from the player. Enjoyment is an emotional repsonse.

That's false logic -- you are expanding specific purpose ("to entertain") into much broader range ("to invoke emotions") based on the fact that entertainment happens to be an emotion. That's equivalent of going from "He wants to eat a banana" to "He wants to eat a fruit".
 

The character's emotional response is irrelevent and separate from that of the player's, the character will feel whatever the plot demands. The two issues don't even intersect, so his argument is senseless.

... i really don't want to turn this into a "what's an RPG" discussion, but i'm starting to think you have some very weird concept of it.

The character won't "feel whatever the plot demands" in a role-playing game. The character should instead feel what the player thinks they should feel in reaction to the plot. Based on the player's interpretation and understanding of said character, and not pre-determined and fixed script (like it's the case with the movies)

Apples and oranges, like i said.

[tmp7704]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Your above story does not tell the narrative from the viewpoint of the characters, but from an omnipotent third person, who views all and can determine how things in the game are setup up and can impose constraints upon the world.

Yes, it's one of the two most common narratives used for telling stories. It's mostly the matter of preference -- the same story could be easily enough written instead as if viewed through the eyes of characters involved.

Is there a name for such a being in video games? Oh yeah... I think they are called PLAYERS. So this entire story, made up entirely by character interactions, is being viewed through the players eyes, where THEY are the ones super imposing emotions, thoughts, conversations and motives.

The story is viewed, interpreted and related by the author who ultimately determines the characters thoughts. In this regard it is no different from any other fictional story ever published.

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 décembre 2011 - 01:19 .

[Theagg]

tmp7704 wrote...

Since you aren't the character, if that's supposed to be the reason to try to make the game immersive, that reason is essentially based on false premise.

You are the character, all other role playing pretentions aside. The in game character has no true personality, no capacity for emotion without you the player. So if you the player cannot bring real emotions to the game, it has failed.

No. Consider a case where the player is afflicted with arachnophobia, but their character isn't supposed to be. How is it then "all the better" if the player is getting seizures at the thought of facing a giant spider, while their character in this situation would be cool as cucumber and acting rationally?

Ahh, so now you want the real world player who suffers from arachnaphobia, to play a character who isn't. And then for the actual player to put aside this real fear of theirs when spiders appear onscreen ?

Very good. Role Playing games as psychotherapy.

See, System Shock 2 had a mod for this eventually, called the No Spiders mod. It removed them from the game so peoples real arachnaphobia would not be triggered (plus the spiders were damn brutes to handle anyway). That's the way you deal with that.

Anyway. I would also point out your spider/arachnophobia example here is flawed. The point under discusion was that games that try to evoke emotional responses in the player have failed.

Whereas I would argue that putting spiders into the game is no more a deliberate attempt to evoke an emotional response than is putting most other creatures. It's simply a side effect that some players may react negatively. If you want to still hold to that point then you have to use the same reasoning for all other aspects of game design that evoke such 'unintended' reactions and role play those out too.

Example, quite a few players had a negative emotional response to the design of Kirkwall. Why not 'role play' that out of the equation. Ie, in game, Hawke would not have such a response, since to Hawke, it's a real place, not an exercise in cost cutting on behalf of the game designers...and so on.

How is it biased? The simulation you mention as alternative is after all also entirely cool, rational and unemotional. So you trust such simulation to remain unbiased, but the player operating under the same conditions is supposed to have bias? Explain.

Which alternative simulation are you referring to here ? But, it's biased because you are making assumptions about how fear might affect a character from a detached perspective, based on you the players own subjective evaluations and emotional responses to the game. Which is not the same as actually experiencing fear and reacting accordingly.

Ie, you the player are still both being influenced by the game and responding to that in the way you think fit. The player is in the equation.

An here's another example. If, as the narrative develops the writers want to put your character in a scene that evokes emotional response (The death of Hawkes mother for example) the best way for that to work, to have some real impact is to evoke a sense of loss in the player as well. (and it was one of the complaints of DA2 that for some at that particular point in the game, it failed to do this)

Prentending to feel loss on behalf of the character you are role playing takes all the weight out of scenes like those.

Modifié par Theagg, 08 décembre 2011 - 04:45 .

[Plaintiff]

tmp7704 wrote...

It is indeed utter nonsense because you're purposefully mixing apples and oranges. When you watch the movie you're expected to at best experience the events, not guide the characters in the manner you think they should behave.

Noooo I'm not. Movies and games are both deisgned to access and engage the emotions of their audience. Both want you to sympathise with their characters and care about what happens to them.

That's false logic -- you are expanding specific purpose ("to entertain") into much broader range ("to invoke emotions") based on the fact that entertainment happens to be an emotion. That's equivalent of going from "He wants to eat a banana" to "He wants to eat a fruit".

Noooo it isn't, though I'll admit I was oversimplfying to make a point. Provoking specific emotional responses in the appropriate scenes is part of engaging the player, and thus part of creating the sense of enjoyment. The two are inherent and inextricable. You can't have one without the other.

The character won't "feel whatever the plot demands" in a role-playing game. The character should instead feel what the player thinks they should feel in reaction to the plot. Based on the player's interpretation and understanding of said character, and not pre-determined and fixed script (like it's the case with the movies)

Apples and oranges, like i said.

It still relies largely on the demands of the plot, the only difference is that the player is flling in some of the blanks. If the player is divorced from emotional engagement, then they can't make that decision. They have to be able to understand the emotional weight of the situation the character is in and be able to compare the character's personality in relation to their own in order to decide what reaction makes sense. Which is, by the way, exactly what you do when watching a movie or reading a book, though not conciously.

Further, the player has to be able to put themselves in the character's shoes. To, in a sense, believe that they are the character and they are in that situation, while still being aware that they're in their living rom, pushing buttons or rolling dice. If the game fails at one, the players are left only with the other, and that gets dull fast.

What Sylvius is, in essence, suggesting, is that it's not a proper RPG unless it prohibits the use of imagination and bores you into quitting.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 08 décembre 2011 - 04:14 .