623 réponses à ce sujet

[DreamwareStudio]

Yrkoon wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...
Are the DA2 fanatics still saying Witcher 2 is sexist? It's like games aren't allowed to show a realistic world yet a book, movie or tv show is fine.

Yeah, I don't get (and never did)  the "sexist" argument for Witcher 2.  Just about all the women in the game are politically significant/Powerful Individuals that quite literally pull the world's strings (many Are Sorcereses who work directly with Kings and Emperors and are seen as Earth-shakingly powerful. More so than Geralt) others are described, in game, as the Deadly elites (Roche describes Ves as the best member of his Blue Stripes). Then we've got a whole race, no, make that 2 whole races of people who declare Saskia the Dragon Slayer as their ruler.

Even the Game's two Brothel Maddams have overbearing, strong personalities and don't take crap from anyone, including Geralt.

So where are people seeing this sexism?   Oh wait, is it because the game forces you to be a heterosexual Male Mutant? If that's your argument, then you've got nothing. None of us ever called Tomb Raider "sexist" even though it forces you to be a chick.

THIS.

[DreamwareStudio]

Masako52 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...
Are the DA2 fanatics still saying Witcher 2 is sexist? It's like games aren't allowed to show a realistic world yet a book, movie or tv show is fine.

Yeah, I don't get (and never did)  the "sexist" argument for Witcher 2.  Just about all the women in the game are politically significant/Powerful Individuals that quite literally pull the world's strings (many Are Sorcereses who work directly with Kings and Emperors and are seen as Earth-shakingly powerful. More so than Geralt) others are described, in game, as the Deadly elites (Roche describes Ves as the best member of his Blue Stripes). Then we've got a whole race, no, make that 2 whole races of people who declare Saskia the Dragon Slayer as their ruler.

Even the Game's two Brothel Maddams have overbearing, strong personalities and don't take crap from anyone, including Geralt.

So where are people seeing this sexism?   Oh wait, is it because the game forces you to be a heterosexual Male Mutant? If that's your argument, then you've got nothing. None of us ever called Tomb Raider "sexist" even though it forces you to be a chick.

If a woman says she thinks a certain game might be sexist... your best course of action is to listen to her why. Sorry to say, but lots of men don't realize something is sexist. It's not your fault, you're men, you've never had to experience being a woman. And a woman can certainly give an unfair opinion, but chances are, women see things that men don't notice or take for granted. So please just be sensitive about sexist claims.

I've been gaming all my life, and video games have always been perceived to be a male dominated thing. Even though these days, I think the number of men and women gamers is much closer. But I still am bothered in principle by women always dressed "sexy", for example. How many women in action games are wearing as much clothing as men? Yeah... it's not that being sexy is a bad thing, it's that female characters ALWAYS have to be sexy to appeal to a male audience. So if that sort of thing is bothering women, well, women have the right to be irritated by it.

Just giving one example, is all. (and I don't think having a male protagonist is sexist, obviously, and would agree that it's an unfair critique. But most games -especially in the genres I like - do have male protagonists, and when it stops being about individual games and starts being about every single game, that's when things start to get a little annoying.)

PS - you can't really be sexist toward men. Tomb Raider having a female protagonist isn't really a good argument anyway, since it was marketed toward a male audience.

Sorry that this is getting off topic.

I understand why the Witcher games are considered sexist despite the powerful and independent women the game protrays.  Not every powerful woman should be sexy or beautiful.  Not every woman should be attractive with watermelon sized bazoombas.  I prefer it more realistic.  Armor should not be revealing, etc.  Even with that changed, though, sexism in the Witcher games should still exist as should racism (dwarves, elves, etc.).  I want a world that shows its social stripes, is not all politically correct, and makes playing more interesting and hopefully challenging on other levels besides the physical combat.

FYI, sexism towards men does exist.

Modifié par google_calasade, 13 janvier 2012 - 05:55 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Witcher 2 on Insane was the most challenging thing I've ever had in a RPG. Dark Mode, what the **** is Dark Mode lol?

Insane mode w/o having to start over once Geralt dies.

[DreamwareStudio]

Il Divo wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

No multi-platform support is why I've been unable to play Dark Souls.  It does sound interesting.  I wish, however, they had made it available for the PC.  I stopped console gaming a couple of years ago when a friend showed me a comparison between the XBOX and a PC.

Every once in a while, a game comes along that tempts me to buy another console.  Dark Souls is one of them.  I figure, though, I'll hang on until the next generation is released.  Those will be good for a year or two before they're behind what a PC can do, I figure, so from a technological standpoint, I'll be getting some kind of return.

If it helps, I'm trying to get everyone I know onto that Dark Souls for PC petition that's going around.

Right now we seem to be in opposite situations. I'm waiting for TW2 to make its way to consoles. I've heard too many good things regarding the games setting, graphics, and choices/consequences.

Where's said petition?  I'll sign that sucker.

[Gunderic]

Masako52 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...
Are the DA2 fanatics still saying Witcher 2 is sexist? It's like games aren't allowed to show a realistic world yet a book, movie or tv show is fine.

Yeah, I don't get (and never did)  the "sexist" argument for Witcher 2.  Just about all the women in the game are politically significant/Powerful Individuals that quite literally pull the world's strings (many Are Sorcereses who work directly with Kings and Emperors and are seen as Earth-shakingly powerful. More so than Geralt) others are described, in game, as the Deadly elites (Roche describes Ves as the best member of his Blue Stripes). Then we've got a whole race, no, make that 2 whole races of people who declare Saskia the Dragon Slayer as their ruler.

Even the Game's two Brothel Maddams have overbearing, strong personalities and don't take crap from anyone, including Geralt.

So where are people seeing this sexism?   Oh wait, is it because the game forces you to be a heterosexual Male Mutant? If that's your argument, then you've got nothing. None of us ever called Tomb Raider "sexist" even though it forces you to be a chick.

If a woman says she thinks a certain game might be sexist... your best course of action is to listen to her why. Sorry to say, but lots of men don't realize something is sexist. It's not your fault, you're men, you've never had to experience being a woman. And a woman can certainly give an unfair opinion, but chances are, women see things that men don't notice or take for granted. So please just be sensitive about sexist claims.

I've been gaming all my life, and video games have always been perceived to be a male dominated thing. Even though these days, I think the number of men and women gamers is much closer. But I still am bothered in principle by women always dressed "sexy", for example. How many women in action games are wearing as much clothing as men? Yeah... it's not that being sexy is a bad thing, it's that female characters ALWAYS have to be sexy to appeal to a male audience. So if that sort of thing is bothering women, well, women have the right to be irritated by it.

Just giving one example, is all. (and I don't think having a male protagonist is sexist, obviously, and would agree that it's an unfair critique. But most games -especially in the genres I like - do have male protagonists, and when it stops being about individual games and starts being about every single game, that's when things start to get a little annoying.)

PS - you can't really be sexist toward men.

Hmm... I'm putting that in my sig (why is there so little space?!). 

The thing is, women are really last on the list of groups I'm worried are being discriminated against in the Western world (and beyond), especially in media.

Men in fiction have very often been designed with sex appeal in mind too, even if the material was aimed more at men than women; it's just that men don't complain about it all that much. I've seen hundreds of barrel-chested Duke Nukems or Rambos, and while they're not designed to appeal sexually to a male audience, they are sexualized to maintain sex appeal.

After all, Duke Nukem was probably not intended to be played by a majority of gay audience, or wasn't aimed at them specifically. Yet why did the developers think heterosexual white males like to play as a 'hunk with a big package'? Yes I know, of course, that he was a parody. That's not the point. The reason for the existence of characters like Duke Nukem should be obvious. They were intended for a let's say, less mature audience...

What I'm saying is also off-topic, but I consider the fervent "anti-sexualization" of women in fiction blatantly sexist at times. It's as if for whatever reason being sexualized invalidates all other qualities in a female character in media. That anything bigger than an A-cup translates into marginalizing a character into nothing more than eye-candy for an audience.

The problem with feminism is that it is a movement that thrives on issues. If there are no more issues to be talked about, the movement would be dead. And when there's little real issues to be talked about (not saying all are trivial, like women's rights in the mid-east), people start creating issues, and splitting hairs. And you know what that does to me? It prevents me from playing my video games.

Feminists here on the BSN, of which I have personally observed are quite a few, care about women's representation first and games second. And before you say "that's not bad all; they got their priorities straight", think about what I really mean by this for a second.

Come on, people. There must be some of you around. Some of you who also can't stand bullcrap, like me. Search your heart, you know it to be true: every last word of it... most of it, anyway.

Modifié par Gunderic, 13 janvier 2012 - 06:09 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Il Divo wrote...

Who said it was my kind of game? Criticizing Skyrim doesn't make me a huge fan of DA2, which commits substantially different errors.

I'm simply pointing out that role-playing, since it's dependent on something to interact with, is built around restrictions. If I control everything in the world, including the gameplay mechanics, the setting, and what npcs are thinking, I'm no longer role-playing, but writing. I become God, the author, the Dungeonmaster, the one who designs everything.

In simple terms: It's your character, it's the creator's world. By necessity, you can only control one half of the coin. It's a  pretty critical distinction from writing, where you command both halves.

Good point.

This is not a simple argument of who liked or did not like (me, for one) DA 2.  It goes beyond that.

It seems a lot of people (and some devs) want to control both halves of the coin when playing.  What they don't understand is that as soon as they are capable of that, a game will lose a lot of its RPG qualities.  Don't give me a world I can control.  Give me one where I have to learn the ins and outs of navigating, adapting to, and living within that world.

Modifié par google_calasade, 13 janvier 2012 - 06:09 .

[LobselVith8]

Il Divo wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Except that isn't the argument that people like Addai67 are trying to make - she isn't arguing to control every aspect of the game, she was addressing the control over the protagonist, and the freedom to RP through the lack of restricting the player to a specific type of PC, i.e. Hawke in Dragon Age II who can never be an atheist because he's Andrastian, is passive, and is directed through a specific narrative regardless of player imput.

Effectively speaking, it's the same thing. Controlling both your PC's reactions and everyone else's reactions is controlling the game world, at which point everything is up for grabs in the name of role-play. I could say "I'm simply role-playing a character who is so well-rested he learns all his skills faster".

How is control over the protagonist = control over everyone? I don't see how the two are the same thing. Having control over the protagonist doesn't mean that I want to control every single character in the game. I don't think we're on the same page here. I don't recall anyone arguing to control everyone in the game. Addai67, for instance, specifically addressed the control over the protagonist, and having the freedom to define the reasons and purpose behind the protagonist's motivations and actions in the storyline - the Playable Character (PC) of the game. Also, she explained how the position of Archmage can be a political appointment, rather than a position provided by a demonstration of magical aptitude, but almost all the Elder Scroll games have provided the PC with the means of rising to power within certain guilds. Neither example involves controlling others and their reactions, only control over the PC.

Il Divo wrote...

I think, to the best of the game's abilities, players should have absolute control over what their character does, but not over what others do. This is why it's role-playing; you take an action, game reacts. Despite not being a Mage, my character (since he is my character) should have the option of trying to join the College of Winterhold. But if I try to take certain actions which threaten to break the internal consistency of the world, the game should be allowed to restrict me, because in taking any action, the game must react in some capacity. 

That's pretty much how it is - your protagonist can try, and if he (or she) lacks the ability to perform the necessary task, he (or she) isn't permitted into the College of Winterhold. The only exception is for the Dragonborn, since one hasn't been seen for centuries, and even that requires a demonstration of ability to prove that the protagonist actually is who he claims to be.

Il Divo wrote...

Let me give you my favorite example of where DA2 and Skyrim each fail on their own merits.

Dragon Age 2: After the Qunari mage burning himself alive, I am not able to kill Petrice. This is a perfect example where that RP freedom should be available. The woman is alone, with a single bodyguard, in a warehouse at night, after having stabbed my character in the back. Instead, the game forces me to let her go, with empty threats of revenge.

My action is dependent on only myself, the decision to kill Petrice. It should be available. 

I agree completely.
 

Il Divo wrote...

On the other hand, in Skyrim becoming Arch-Mage involves more than my protagonist wanting to be Arch-Mage. It involves the game world and characters, in some capacity, acknowledging that my character deserves to be Arch-Mage.

There, the role-playing is not only dependent on myself, but on the world's reaction/consistency as well. 

That's how I think all role-playing should be handled, and how my group commonly takes it in pen and paper. It's not enough for my character to want something to happen. If I want the game world to react in a certain way, I must also give it reason to act in that way; internal consistency.

Addai67 has pointed out that this can be a political appointment, so I don't see how consistency is broken when there are reasons to explain the position being provided to the Dragonborn - which makes sense, especially since everyone knows that the PC was involved and resolved the conflict of the Eye of Magnus with a staff that is said to have been wielded by Magnus himself.

For my Tribunal mage - I choose to go through the College of Winterhold and have my character master all the schools of magic and go through the different tasks (and Master Ritual Spell quests), because I want to feel like my protagonist has earned the position through his magical aptitude.

[DreamwareStudio]

Gunderic wrote...

The problem with feminism is that it is a movement that thrives on issues. If there are no more issues to be talked about, the movement would be dead. And when there's little real issues to be talked about (not saying all are trivial, like women's rights in the mid-east), people start creating issues, and splitting hairs. And you know what that does to me? It prevents me from playing my video games.

Feminists here on the BSN, of which I have personally observed are quite a few, care about women's representation first and games second. And before you say "that's not bad all; they got their priorities straight", think about what I really mean by this for a second.

Come on, people. There must be some of you around. Some of you who also can't stand bullcrap, like me. Search your heart, you know it to be true: every last word of it... most of it, anyway.

Indeed.

[John Epler]

google_calasade wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Who said it was my kind of game? Criticizing Skyrim doesn't make me a huge fan of DA2, which commits substantially different errors.

I'm simply pointing out that role-playing, since it's dependent on something to interact with, is built around restrictions. If I control everything in the world, including the gameplay mechanics, the setting, and what npcs are thinking, I'm no longer role-playing, but writing. I become God, the author, the Dungeonmaster, the one who designs everything.

In simple terms: It's your character, it's the creator's world. By necessity, you can only control one half of the coin. It's a  pretty critical distinction from writing, where you command both halves.

Good point.

This is not a simple argument of who liked or did not like (me, for one) DA 2.  It goes beyond that.

It seems a lot of people (and some devs) want to control both halves of the coin when playing.  What they don't understand is that as soon as they are capable of that, a game will lose a lot of its RPG qualities.  Don't give me a world I can control.  Give me one where I have to learn the ins and outs of navigating, adapting to, and living within that world.

However, I think you need to avoid the urge to make things too sim'ish. Any feature that you include with the intent of increasing the sense of a world outside of the player's control has to be scrutinized. There's a notable difference between 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, the world is a much more terrifying place' and 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, you have to hit a button to pass the time until it's day again because the biggest difference is now you can't turn in quests or go to shops'.

For example, as a player I'd find it to be a positive if, when it's night time, I have to go and find a vendor in the less-than-savoury part of town because my usual blacksmith goes to bed at 6PM. Because I'm going to the 'slums', as it were, I end up getting mugged (for example) in a procedurally generated encounter and have to fight off my attackers. Or maybe nothing happens - but I know that the streets are a lot more dangerous down there because of a reduced guard presence.

To me, that helps with creating a living world while still avoiding the (to me) incredibly irritating feeling of 'oh, well, time to wait for 6 hours because I need to sell this breastplate'. Now, having said that, I think that the parts of the game that take place outside of town are an entirely other kettle of fish. That's where I want to see a marked difference between day and night - nocturnal creatures come out to hunt, and certain areas become more dangerous. In town, though, I really do feel that if you go too far in the 'well, it's night time, everything you wanted to do is locked until 5AM' direction, it's more irritating than anything. However, I think you can make concessions in that direction, so long as you aren't telling the player that night time is clearly the wrong time to be wandering around town.

[Il Divo]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Addai67 has pointed out that this can be a political appointment, so I don't see how consistency is broken when there are reasons to explain the position being provided to the Dragonborn - which makes sense, especially since everyone knows that the PC was involved and resolved the conflict of the Eye of Magnus with a staff that is said to have been wielded by Magnus himself. 

That's the problem. Can be. People have thrown out the possibility that the reason the Dragonborn is chosen is due to being in command of a unique ability. This ignores that 1) you do not need to be identified as Dragonborn to complete the questline and 2) that this reason is not supplied by any of the characters. Instead we are forced to imagine why this might be the case, according to some criteria which is not presented. And as I said before, we shouldn't be guessing the npc's motivations, when it apparently contradicts the nature of the Arch-Mage position.

I can invent a reason for any action the world might allow. Are you seeing now why it doesn't make sense to allow whatever we want? If I can invent a reason for why an npc made me Arch-Mage, I can invent it for anything else I want and call it freedom to role-play. Remember, the comparison was made to "writing a story". Calling the Arch-Mage a political appointment is a tad far-fetched, since 1) I do not have the option to deny the appointment and 2) that's never made explicit as the cause 3) No one, in any capacity, addresses my potential lack of magical or administrative capabilities. We're only ever given some vague "You are perfect as the Arch-Mage". The primary question being: why am I perfect as the Arch-Mage? My abilities are more the skill set of a spelunker.

Edit: I should also point out that if the complaint has nothing to do with wanting control over the game world, then there shouldn't be a problem with the College of Winterhold having skill requirements in order to advance, and can be said to demonstrate them expecting certain criteria from their members.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 janvier 2012 - 06:47 .

[DreamwareStudio]

JohnEpler wrote...

However, I think you need to avoid the urge to make things too sim'ish. Any feature that you include with the intent of increasing the sense of a world outside of the player's control has to be scrutinized. There's a notable difference between 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, the world is a much more terrifying place' and 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, you have to hit a button to pass the time until it's day again because the biggest difference is now you can't turn in quests or go to shops'.

For example, as a player I'd find it to be a positive if, when it's night time, I have to go and find a vendor in the less-than-savoury part of town because my usual blacksmith goes to bed at 6PM. Because I'm going to the 'slums', as it were, I end up getting mugged (for example) in a procedurally generated encounter and have to fight off my attackers. Or maybe nothing happens - but I know that the streets are a lot more dangerous down there because of a reduced guard presence.

To me, that helps with creating a living world while still avoiding the (to me) incredibly irritating feeling of 'oh, well, time to wait for 6 hours because I need to sell this breastplate'. Now, having said that, I think that the parts of the game that take place outside of town are an entirely other kettle of fish. That's where I want to see a marked difference between day and night - nocturnal creatures come out to hunt, and certain areas become more dangerous. In town, though, I really do feel that if you go too far in the 'well, it's night time, everything you wanted to do is locked until 5AM' direction, it's more irritating than anything. However, I think you can make concessions in that direction, so long as you aren't telling the player that night time is clearly the wrong time to be wandering around town.

I like the way you think.   A good balance of realism and playability.  I especially like the idea of a different vendor open at night in a less than savory place where there is a chance of getting mugged and regarding going outside the city walls where nocturnal creatures hunt.

The different vendor?  Opens up all kinds of possibilities, as maybe he trades in illegal merchandise you cannot get anywhere else.  Much better than another vendor standing in the same marketplace that's open at daytime with really the only difference being the color of the sky.

Modifié par google_calasade, 13 janvier 2012 - 06:44 .

[LobselVith8]

Il Divo wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Addai67 has pointed out that this can be a political appointment, so I don't see how consistency is broken when there are reasons to explain the position being provided to the Dragonborn - which makes sense, especially since everyone knows that the PC was involved and resolved the conflict of the Eye of Magnus with a staff that is said to have been wielded by Magnus himself. 

That's the problem. Can be. People have thrown out the possibility that the reason the Dragonborn is chosen is due to being in command of a unique ability. This ignores that 1) you do not need to be identified as Dragonborn to complete the questline and 2) that this reason is not supplied by any of the characters. Instead we are forced to imagine why this might be the case, according to some criteria which is not presented. And as I said before, we shouldn't be guessing the npc's motivations, when it apparently contradicts the nature of the Arch-Mage position.

What you're addressing are the possibilities listed for why the protagonist would receive the position of Archmage. Also, I don't agree that it "contradicts" the nature of the position, since it's never explained what lead to Savos Aren obtaining the position, so it's not apparent what earned him the position. It's never explicitly what earned the protagonist the right to become the new Archmage, since we receive the recommendation from the Psiijic Order and Tolfdir's agreement, which is likely because the protagonist may vary in his or her skill with certain schools of magic.

Il Divo wrote...

I can invent a reason for any action the world might allow. Are you seeing now why it doesn't make sense to allow whatever we want? If I can invent a reason for why an npc made me Arch-Mage, I can invent it for anything else I want and call it freedom to role-play.

It's addressing the possible reasons why a certain action took place (such as the appointment to be the new Archmage with Tolfdir's approval), not explicitly controlling the actions of others.

Il Divo wrote...

Remember, the comparison was made to "writing a story". Calling the Arch-Mage a political appointment is a tad far-fetched, since 1) I do not have the option to deny the appointment and 2) that's never made explicit as the cause 3) No one, in any capacity, addresses my potential lack of magical or administrative capabilities. We're only ever given some vague "You are perfect as the Arch-Mage". The primary question being: why am I perfect as the Arch-Mage? My abilities are more the skill set of a spelunker.

It's probably vague because not every protagonist would be at the same skillset, and it leaves room for interpretation when player's abilities may vary.

[Pzykozis]

JohnEpler wrote...

However, I think you need to avoid the urge to make things too sim'ish. Any feature that you include with the intent of increasing the sense of a world outside of the player's control has to be scrutinized. There's a notable difference between 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, the world is a much more terrifying place' and 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, you have to hit a button to pass the time until it's day again because the biggest difference is now you can't turn in quests or go to shops'.

I'd say that either one is fairly "sim"-ish though, and being 'too "sim"-ish' is kinda a nebulous idea.. since its a shifting line on a scale but anyway, both having a less salubrious guy and a having to rest at night can both be "sim"-ish depending on the way it's implemented, this guy operating out of the slum can't exactly be the nicest and harm-free of fellows either being a fence or a smuggler or something, means that the player is actively supporting that "community" of folks, and if that comes up then the game is still "sim"ing to a certain extent. It's only less of a sim if the merchant is just arbitrarily (or feels like it) there.

Now if only there were guard patrols and dark alleys with procedural encounters and guards helping out.. and the possibility of joining either side and... /continues rambling.

[DreamwareStudio]

Pzykozis wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

However, I think you need to avoid the urge to make things too sim'ish. Any feature that you include with the intent of increasing the sense of a world outside of the player's control has to be scrutinized. There's a notable difference between 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, the world is a much more terrifying place' and 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, you have to hit a button to pass the time until it's day again because the biggest difference is now you can't turn in quests or go to shops'.

I'd say that either one is fairly "sim"-ish though, and being 'too "sim"-ish' is kinda a nebulous idea.. since its a shifting line on a scale but anyway, both having a less salubrious guy and a having to rest at night can both be "sim"-ish depending on the way it's implemented, this guy operating out of the slum can't exactly be the nicest and harm-free of fellows either being a fence or a smuggler or something, means that the player is actively supporting that "community" of folks, and if that comes up then the game is still "sim"ing to a certain extent. It's only less of a sim if the merchant is just arbitrarily (or feels like it) there.

Now if only there were guard patrols and dark alleys with procedural encounters and guards helping out.. and the possibility of joining either side and... /continues rambling.

There should be consequences to interacting with a world that is dangerous and beyond our control that also extends outside of the main storyline.  Give me the nebulous, and let me find out what's on the other side of that cloud.  The less "sim" it seems, the better, but I'll take a bit of sim anyday over a world I can virtually control.  Give the player control over the world, there are no surprises or changes; it's where the sun always shines, both literally and figuratively.

[John Epler]

Pzykozis wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

However, I think you need to avoid the urge to make things too sim'ish. Any feature that you include with the intent of increasing the sense of a world outside of the player's control has to be scrutinized. There's a notable difference between 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, the world is a much more terrifying place' and 'here's a day night cycle where, at night, you have to hit a button to pass the time until it's day again because the biggest difference is now you can't turn in quests or go to shops'.

I'd say that either one is fairly "sim"-ish though, and being 'too "sim"-ish' is kinda a nebulous idea.. since its a shifting line on a scale but anyway, both having a less salubrious guy and a having to rest at night can both be "sim"-ish depending on the way it's implemented, this guy operating out of the slum can't exactly be the nicest and harm-free of fellows either being a fence or a smuggler or something, means that the player is actively supporting that "community" of folks, and if that comes up then the game is still "sim"ing to a certain extent. It's only less of a sim if the merchant is just arbitrarily (or feels like it) there.

Now if only there were guard patrols and dark alleys with procedural encounters and guards helping out.. and the possibility of joining either side and... /continues rambling.

What I mean is more along the lines of arbitrarily irritating the player because 'that's how it would be in the real world'. Sometimes, that can be fun - I think that a properly fleshed out (by which I mean that you are required to spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time on it) hunger and thirst mechanic would be neat in the right type of game. 

But with any feature like that, you have to look at whether you're adding complexity and depth, or just annoying the player. If it's something that can be easily overcome in a fashion that takes the player out of the world, the idea that it exists for no real reason is not an unfair judgment to make.

There's a balancing act between 'this world is immersive and feels 'real'' and 'this world is like the real world in even the most irritating ways'. The fact that vehicles in most open world games don't run out of gas is something I am highly appreciative of, even if it's not entirely realistic. If, halfway through a mission in GTAIV, I had to pull into a gas station and spend five minutes filling up, that would just be irritating. On the other hand, if I'm playing a game that emphasizes survival and a 'real world' feel, that would be kind of neat. Especially if I had to be on my guard against bandit attacks.

Ahem. I seem to have drifted off topic.

[Il Divo]

LobselVith8 wrote...

What you're addressing are the possibilities listed for why the protagonist would receive the position of Archmage. Also, I don't agree that it "contradicts" the nature of the position, since it's never explained what lead to Savos Aren obtaining the position, so it's not apparent what earned him the position. It's never explicitly what earned the protagonist the right to become the new Archmage, since we receive the recommendation from the Psiijic Order and Tolfdir's agreement, which is likely because the protagonist may vary in his or her skill with certain schools of magic.

It's addressing the possible reasons why a certain action took place (such as the appointment to be the new Archmage with Tolfdir's approval), not explicitly controlling the actions of others.

It's probably vague because not every protagonist would be at the same skillset, and it leaves room for interpretation when player's abilities may vary.

More specifically, it leaves room for absurdity. I'll try explaining this using one more fundamental example. If this doesn't work, I think we might have to drop this.

If you're playing DnD and you tell your DM "my character jumps up and down", your DM isn't going to tell you no. He's going to say "Okay, your character jumps up and down". As I explained before, absolute control over your character's actions and attempted actions.

Now imagine that you're standing next to a giant boulder and you tell your DM "I pick up the boulder and throw it". Your DM is going to shake his head and say "No, make a strength check". Passing indicates that your character is strong enough to lift the boulder, failing that he cannot. The boulder represents everything outside the PC's control, the game world every object, every character, anything and everything which your PC is capable of interacting with.

In Dragon Age 2, telling the player he can't kill Sister Petrice is akin to your DM telling you that your character can't jump, an action completely within your character's control. Your character not being able to join the College of Winterhold because his abilities are sub-par is akin to your DM telling you that you're not strong enough to lift the boulder because he doesn't possess the requisite strength. These are two rules which all role-playing, at its most ideal, should be consistent with.

If your counter for why the character can so easily join (and master) the College of Winterhold is "don't break role-playing", then the game has screwed up in its efforts to simulate a coherent game world. A DM will never let you break the setting. The game world shouldn't either. The onus should not be on the player to ensure setting consistency, or to imagine explanations for the game's narrative. The game is aware of this in preventing the player from joining both the Stormcloaks and Imperials, in its crime system, etc. It should be aware of this with the College of Winterhold as well. Role-playing is fundamentally built on how the game restricts you, much like with the boulder.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 janvier 2012 - 07:10 .

[DreamwareStudio]

JohnEpler wrote...

What I mean is more along the lines of arbitrarily irritating the player because 'that's how it would be in the real world'. Sometimes, that can be fun - I think that a properly fleshed out (by which I mean that you are required to spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time on it) hunger and thirst mechanic would be neat in the right type of game. 

But with any feature like that, you have to look at whether you're adding complexity and depth, or just annoying the player. If it's something that can be easily overcome in a fashion that takes the player out of the world, the idea that it exists for no real reason is not an unfair judgment to make.

There's a balancing act between 'this world is immersive and feels 'real'' and 'this world is like the real world in even the most irritating ways'. The fact that vehicles in most open world games don't run out of gas is something I am highly appreciative of, even if it's not entirely realistic. If, halfway through a mission in GTAIV, I had to pull into a gas station and spend five minutes filling up, that would just be irritating. On the other hand, if I'm playing a game that emphasizes survival and a 'real world' feel, that would be kind of neat. Especially if I had to be on my guard against bandit attacks.

Ahem. I seem to have drifted off topic.

I fail to see where you drifted off topic with your example.  I like it.

I've long wanted an RPG where the PC has a hunger and thirst mechanic, where the world is immersive because it feels more real without being overly annoying and repetitive.  It's a hard act to balance, but I think attempts need to be made at just such a thing.  Otherwise, what you end up with is a fairly bland, way too easy game that has the depth of a mud puddle.

[Il Divo]

google_calasade wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

What I mean is more along the lines of arbitrarily irritating the player because 'that's how it would be in the real world'. Sometimes, that can be fun - I think that a properly fleshed out (by which I mean that you are required to spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time on it) hunger and thirst mechanic would be neat in the right type of game. 

But with any feature like that, you have to look at whether you're adding complexity and depth, or just annoying the player. If it's something that can be easily overcome in a fashion that takes the player out of the world, the idea that it exists for no real reason is not an unfair judgment to make.

There's a balancing act between 'this world is immersive and feels 'real'' and 'this world is like the real world in even the most irritating ways'. The fact that vehicles in most open world games don't run out of gas is something I am highly appreciative of, even if it's not entirely realistic. If, halfway through a mission in GTAIV, I had to pull into a gas station and spend five minutes filling up, that would just be irritating. On the other hand, if I'm playing a game that emphasizes survival and a 'real world' feel, that would be kind of neat. Especially if I had to be on my guard against bandit attacks.

Ahem. I seem to have drifted off topic.

I fail to see where you drifted off topic with your example.  I like it.

I've long wanted an RPG where the PC has a hunger and thirst mechanic, where the world is immersive because it feels more real without being overly annoying and repetitive.  It's a hard act to balance, but I think attempts need to be made at just such a thing.  Otherwise, what you end up with is a fairly bland, way too easy game that has the depth of a mud puddle.

One of the things I actually enjoyed alot with Fallout: New Vegas. Hardcore mode added an interesting spin to things.

[DreamwareStudio]

Il Divo wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

What you're addressing are the possibilities listed for why the protagonist would receive the position of Archmage. Also, I don't agree that it "contradicts" the nature of the position, since it's never explained what lead to Savos Aren obtaining the position, so it's not apparent what earned him the position. It's never explicitly what earned the protagonist the right to become the new Archmage, since we receive the recommendation from the Psiijic Order and Tolfdir's agreement, which is likely because the protagonist may vary in his or her skill with certain schools of magic.

It's addressing the possible reasons why a certain action took place (such as the appointment to be the new Archmage with Tolfdir's approval), not explicitly controlling the actions of others.

It's probably vague because not every protagonist would be at the same skillset, and it leaves room for interpretation when player's abilities may vary.

More specifically, it leaves room for absurdity. I'll try explaining this using one more fundamental example. If this doesn't work, I think we might have to drop this.

If you're playing DnD and you tell your DM "my character jumps up and down", your DM isn't going to tell you no. He's going to say "Okay, your character jumps up and down". As I explained before, absolute control over your character's actions and attempted actions.

Now imagine that you're standing next to a giant boulder and you tell your DM "I pick up the boulder and throw it". Your DM is going to shake his head and say "No, make a strength check". Passing indicates that your character is strong enough to lift the boulder, failing that he cannot. The boulder represents everything outside the PC's control, the game world every object, every character, anything and everything which your PC is capable of interacting with.

In Dragon Age 2, telling the player he can't kill Sister Petrice is akin to your DM telling you that your character can't jump, an action completely within your character's control. Your character not being able to join the College of Winterhold because his abilities are sub-par is akin to your DM telling you that you're not strong enough to lift the boulder because he doesn't possess the requisite strength. These are two rules which all role-playing, at its most ideal, should be consistent with.

If your counter for why the character can so easily join (and master) the College of Winterhold is "don't break role-playing", then the game has screwed up in its efforts to simulate a coherent game world. A DM will never let you break the setting. The game world shouldn't either. The onus should not be on the player to ensure setting consistency, or to imagine explanations for the game's narrative. The game is aware of this in preventing the player from joining both the Stormcloaks and Imperials, in its crime system, etc. It should be aware of this with the College of Winterhold as well. Role-playing is fundamentally built on how the game restricts you, much like with the boulder.

That was an exemplary explanation (perhaps the best I've seen in these forums) of what role-playing is built around and how it works.

[DreamwareStudio]

Il Divo wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

I fail to see where you drifted off topic with your example.  I like it.

I've long wanted an RPG where the PC has a hunger and thirst mechanic, where the world is immersive because it feels more real without being overly annoying and repetitive.  It's a hard act to balance, but I think attempts need to be made at just such a thing.  Otherwise, what you end up with is a fairly bland, way too easy game that has the depth of a mud puddle.

One of the things I actually enjoyed alot with Fallout: New Vegas. Hardcore mode added an interesting spin to things.

Looks like I have another game to get.

[casadechrisso]

New Vegas? Ya, it's great, get it. Obsidian's best.

[Il Divo]

google_calasade wrote...

That was an exemplary explanation (perhaps the best I've seen in these forums) of what role-playing is built around and how it works.

Very much appreciated, as always. (as are tips).  

[John Epler]

Il Divo wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

What I mean is more along the lines of arbitrarily irritating the player because 'that's how it would be in the real world'. Sometimes, that can be fun - I think that a properly fleshed out (by which I mean that you are required to spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time on it) hunger and thirst mechanic would be neat in the right type of game. 

But with any feature like that, you have to look at whether you're adding complexity and depth, or just annoying the player. If it's something that can be easily overcome in a fashion that takes the player out of the world, the idea that it exists for no real reason is not an unfair judgment to make.

There's a balancing act between 'this world is immersive and feels 'real'' and 'this world is like the real world in even the most irritating ways'. The fact that vehicles in most open world games don't run out of gas is something I am highly appreciative of, even if it's not entirely realistic. If, halfway through a mission in GTAIV, I had to pull into a gas station and spend five minutes filling up, that would just be irritating. On the other hand, if I'm playing a game that emphasizes survival and a 'real world' feel, that would be kind of neat. Especially if I had to be on my guard against bandit attacks.

Ahem. I seem to have drifted off topic.

I fail to see where you drifted off topic with your example.  I like it.

I've long wanted an RPG where the PC has a hunger and thirst mechanic, where the world is immersive because it feels more real without being overly annoying and repetitive.  It's a hard act to balance, but I think attempts need to be made at just such a thing.  Otherwise, what you end up with is a fairly bland, way too easy game that has the depth of a mud puddle.

One of the things I actually enjoyed alot with Fallout: New Vegas. Hardcore mode added an interesting spin to things.

My concern with that particular version of it was that, after a certain point, water and food became so easy to find that it just became an annoyance. But yes, it was one of the few places it's been used and I thought it added a lot to the game early on.

[Il Divo]

JohnEpler wrote...

My concern with that particular version of it was that, after a certain point, water and food became so easy to find that it just became an annoyance. But yes, it was one of the few places it's been used and I thought it added a lot to the game early on.

True, but I think that kind of falls back into a very similar mistake that horror games make. Alot of the appeal of horror games is that, since your character has limited ammunition, you have to be extremely careful with how you use it. Once you're sporting an upgraded shotgun with 100 shells in your backpocket, alot of the intimidation goes out the window.

In general, I think food mechanics can work in alot of different games, but especially in a game world like Fallout where so much of the appeal is the idea  surviving in a barren wasteland, it has an added touch.

[casadechrisso]

Well, in the long run hardcore mode in NV turned out to be just a minor annoyance and nothing really great. I still liked having the option, but it surely wasn't what made NV a great game for me. That Obsidian showed how much Beth games can be improved with a little more care for the writing was what really made it stand out.