132 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Theagg wrote...

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.

The goal/challenge of the role-playing game is to enter the shoes of another, and to act out in a manner they think such person would, in given conditions. This is possible without experiencing the same feelings -- much like a detective is capable of correctly predicting actions of a murderer without experiencing psychotic urges himself/herself.

And no, the game doesn't fail if it doesn't make you feel like the character you're supposed to play. It fails if it cannot entertain you with the challenge/experience it offers.

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 ?

No, i have asked how is it "all the better" for the player to experience emotions, in particular in situations which don't affect the character they're playing? You haven't actually anwered that question. Instead, you acknowledge that people actually seek to eliminate such situations, through modding or other means. It hardly seems they consider it "all the better" then, no?

Which alternative simulation are you referring to here?

The one you brought up when you said:

"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."

That sentence parses to me as "running a simulation of character's emotions is unbiased, while having the player decide the same in cool, unemotional manner isn't".

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.

The same applies to "running a simulation", since any simulation you'd run is going to be a product of someone's assumptions about how fear might affect certain personality, etc. Why would you claim then one is biased but the other isn't?

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

Only if you lack the empathy and are indeed forced to pretend. Though in all fairness, it is very difficult to understand the feelings of losing someone like your parent, and most players are bound to be too young to know that experience first-hand.

But in any case --like already said at the beginning-- you, the player, don't actually need to "feel loss on behalf of the character", be it real or pretended. You're only expected to decide how the character would act if they were feeling such loss.

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 décembre 2011 - 10:17 .

[Maria Caliban]

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.

I think we're talking at cross purposes. 'Dark fantasy' is a literary genre where fantasy - no matter the setting - includes horror elements. Horror, as a genre, is designed to cause a set of emotional and psychological reactions in the reader, viewer, or player.

Whether it succeeds or not for a specific reader, viewer, or player doesn't matter as long as you manage to get the general tone and mood of the genre right. Nor does what the main character feels matter. There are horror stories where the main character is frightened of what's going on around them, but there are also horror stories where the main character is indifferent, sad, happy, or amused.

The game doesn't need to concern itself with whether the player personally gets scared by what's shown to them.

Then it's not a dark fantasy game.

The same way that a comedy game that doesn't concern itself with being funny, satirical, or amusing isn't a comedy game.

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".

And the Cthulhu RPG also spends a considerable amount of effort in creating a horror atmosphere. And its mechanics are designed to enforce that. PCs don't constantly die and/or go insane in Call of Cthulhu because the designers wanted it to be hard to 'win.' Rather, it's to drive home the theme of futility and the feeling of being at the mercy of fate/chance/powers beyond one's comprehension.

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.

If a DM wants to frighten or disturb their players then the fact that frightened or disturbed players might act out of character isn't counter-productive at all. It's actually rather meaningless.

Let me make another analogy: the mystery genre. It's based on there being a mystery for the characters to solve. If the existence of a mystery bothers a player such that they can't be in character, that's not a failure on the genre's part.

While I'm at it, the idea that always being in character is a virtue and that anything that might disrupt that is a bad thing isn't one a subscribe to anyway.

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.

I was fine when Sylvanus' definition meant that there could be no dark fantasy games, and I'm fine with your definition meaning that there can be no dark fantasy RPGs.

That said, do you think that during DA 2, there were any quests that attempted to cause a specific emotional response in the player? Specifically, what about the quest involving Hawke's mother?

If that quest was designed to make players feel a certain way, does that mean DA 2 is no longer an RPG?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 08 décembre 2011 - 11:01 .

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I think we're talking at cross purposes. 'Dark fantasy' is a literary genre where fantasy - no matter the setting - includes horror elements. Horror, as a genre, is designed to cause a set of emotional and psychological reactions in the reader, viewer, or player.

It could be we're interpreting it from different perspectives -- to me there's functional split between "horror elements" as in elements of the settings with certain characteristics, similar to "fantasy elements", "steampunk elements" or "sci-fi elements", vs "horror" as in specific emotions the story is seeking to invoke, similar to say, "comedy" or "romance".

To put it differently, zombies are a "horror element" due to being common device in the horror stories and appearing in the horror genre first, but at the same time the games in particular --thanks to their recent 'zombies are new pirates/ninja and they make anything 20% cooler' mentality-- demonstrate a game featuring zombies can have zero intention of actually scaring the players with their presence.

As such, the intention to cause the reader/viewer distress which is associated with horror doesn't extend to me to a genre which 'features horror elements'. "Featuring horror elements" amounts to me to window dressing.

Then it's not a dark fantasy game.

The same way that a comedy game that doesn't concern itself with being funny, satirical, or amusing isn't a comedy game.

See, that's this split. You use the definition of "dark fantasy" which is "the horror with fantasy elements" and that naturally hinges on such creation behaving like a horror with fantastic window dressing. But "dark fantasy" is also defined as "fantasy fiction that features anti-heroic or morally ambiguous protagonists." It'd be hard to argue that simply having morally ambiguous protagonists is intended to make the viewer experience the sense of horror. So this alternative definition is almost like the reverse of the first. "Fantasy with horror elements" in the sense of "fantasy, but with stuff from horrors. Like zombies or haunted houses".

If a DM wants to frighten or disturb their players then the fact that frightened or disturbed players might act out of character isn't counter-productive at all. It's actually rather meaningless.

If that's what the DM wants, sure. But what does that have with being the host of a role-playing game? And no, i'd say that purposefully throwing your players into mental state in which they can't focus properly on the game objective is counter-productive.

Let me make another analogy: the mystery genre. It's based on there being a mystery for the characters to solve. If the existence of a mystery bothers a player such that they can't be in character, that's not a failure on the genre's part.

True, but at the same time, there's no necessity for the mystery genre to confuse the player at all -- Columbo tv series would be a perfect example here, as it very well demonstrates difference between the viewer/player knowing "who did it" and the protagonist actually being able to arrive to the same conclusion the viewer knows from the beginning.

That said, do you think that during DA 2, there were any quests that attempted to cause a specific emotional response in the player? Specifically, what about the quest involving Hawke's mother?

If that quest was designed to make players feel a certain way, does that mean DA 2 is no longer an RPG?

I don't know if it intended to cause emotional response from the player. If it did, from the comments made by various players it'd appear it failed rather badly in that regard with quite a few of them.

Since the game doesn't remove the player's ability to role-play the actions of their character in response to presented events, it remains an RPG to me. However, i'd say if the focus was just on invoking specific feelings in the player rather than providing a scenario where different feeling and reactions can be explored and decided, then it'd make it an RPG which has become confused about its function.

Modifié par tmp7704, 09 décembre 2011 - 04:43 .

[FedericoV]

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you want a dark fantasy RPG, you should ditch the tactical combat all together and probably any strategic considerations as well.

Dark fantasy is fantasy with horror elements. It doesn't benefit from a top-down view and controlling multiple combatants.

You should ditch most of the gameplay and make it in first person view (and probably without party members). That's the only way horror works in videogames.

Having said that: DA:O and DA2 are not dark fantasy. They are both d&desque fantasy akin to the Forgotten Realms setting, with a more mature, realistic and organic take on certain topics.

[furryrage59]

FedericoV wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you want a dark fantasy RPG, you should ditch the tactical combat all together and probably any strategic considerations as well.

Dark fantasy is fantasy with horror elements. It doesn't benefit from a top-down view and controlling multiple combatants.

You should ditch most of the gameplay and make it in first person view (and probably without party members). That's the only way horror works in videogames.

Having said that: DA:O and DA2 are not dark fantasy. They are both d&desque fantasy akin to the Forgotten Realms setting, with a more mature, realistic and organic take on certain topics.

Dead space, silent hill and resident evils were all 3rd person. (just some examples)

First person wouldn't be very good for horror tbh.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Lack of awareness is a good thing in horror. Silent Hill is a great example of this. The heavy fog obscured the player's vision so they have difficulty orienting themselves to their surroundings.

Because Silent Hill is a horror game.  The point of teh genre, as you point out, is to frighten the player.

RPGs absolutely cannot be trying to do that.  RPGs interact with the player only indirectly, through his character.  The character might be frightened, but the player need not be.

That's like saying it's wrong-headed for pornographers to try to create desire in the viewer/reader. The point of the horror genre is to create fear, disorientation, unease, or a sense of the uncanny.

Again, you're missing the point.  If there were an RPG in which the player's character were a consumer of prnography, then it's the characte who should experience desire.  There is no need at all for the player to experience that same desire.

The player doesn't exist within an RPG's reality.  The game's elements cannot speak to the player, because the player isn't real.

It's a genre defined by desired emotional or psychological reaction

Yes, it is.  But that reaction need not exist in the player.  For a good horror game, sure, but that simply isn't compatible with roleplaying.  As soon as the player is frightened, he is no longer able to make appropriate in-character decisions for his character, as the player's own fear becomes the primary motivator.

The horror and roleplaying genres are mutually exclusive in this regard.

A dark fantasy game is not a blending of RPGs and Horror games, because that's impossible.  A  dark fantasy game introduces teh elements of horror in the game's reality, which is where the characters live.  But the player does not, and thus need not ever be afraid.

[FedericoV]

furryrage59 wrote...

Dead space, silent hill and resident evils were all 3rd person. (just some examples)

First person wouldn't be very good for horror tbh.

Try Amnesia the Dark Descent or the most evocative sequence of Vampire Bloodlines. Your list is good off course, especially Silent Hill 2. But honestly the other games does not scare me as much as those games in first person view. I find first person more immersive so is perfect for a genre that builds everything around suspence and atmosphere.

[freche]

I don't think it's anything strategical with a dice roll. The strategy comes down to how gameplay is designed.

However if we would compare BG, DAO, and DA2. BG has most dice-rolls, and most strategic combat while DA2 has the least of both. So if we would just look at dice vs strategy it would surely look like it's better to use a dice system if you want strategy.

But if we look at how BG combat is:
It has tons of spells (CC, Damage, Nukes, Protective, etc), it's highly unforgiving, you often meet enemies that are outnumbering you or simply are stronger then you are.
An enemy caster can totally ruin your party if you are not prepared to counter. Maybe you need to cast protective magic on one of your characters that runs over to that caster and "tanks" it while your other companions handle the other guys or maybe you summon a bunch of monsters on top of him and makes him spend all his magic on them.
There are many ways to handle an encounter and you need to do something tactical or you simply wont get past it.

DAO combat:
It's a bit faster, mages have less spells, less CC, less nukes. However this time warriors have some abilites to bring to combat.
The overall lack of options to handle situations together with the much more forgiving combat makes it much less tactical then BG. The only things you have to care about in DAO is basically spells with cast time and Crushing Prison.
(Also as you said the unavoidable attacks that hit you even if you walked away, makes it hard to do some good tactical encounters).

DA2 combat:
Combat speed is way too fast and the lack of vision ruins any possibility for tactical combat. It's just run in and priorities targets.
--------
Personally I think it's possible to make combat tactical even if you speed it up to be a little bit faster then DAO, however you would need to have more spells and abilities available then DAO has to make it possible to tackle an encounter in different ways.
The companions would need to be by default smarter
(it doesn't work with: "Ohh, this green goo appeared under me and it hurts, I better stand in it"
or "I'm in this wide open area there is a guy hitting me so I must move, I better move in a straight line through that group of enemies that is hitting my partner so I can take some additional hits and possibly friendly fire"
or "Over there are 3 enemies I better use this AoE right on top of them so it hits my partner too instead of casting it further away so the edge of the aoe hits them and leaves my partner unhurt")

It comes down to that enemies must be dangerous and you must have ways to actively counter them.

Modifié par freche, 10 décembre 2011 - 06:02 .