337 réponses à ce sujet

[Apollo Starflare]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

Filament wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I understand that some players prefer to watch and listen to Hawke act out the storyline.  From my perspective, it is a different genre altogether - not really a role-playing game, but a game with role-playing elements.

I don't think you understand that some of us simply don't see the value in the 'infinite' responses the Warden was able to give, since the game acknowledges only one per dialog choice. Some of us see DA2 as the same sort of "roleplaying game" as DAO ever was, except with a more expressive puppet. And lacking some important information about the choices, sometimes. (full text...)

^^ Could not have put it better myself. This I exactly how I see it.


Also, for me, the silent protagonist does not make it more my character. I've always seen them as BioWare's 'predefined' characters, some more than others.  

Well said.

Batlin wrote...

I don't know what people's problem with doing a little reading is. Hawke's voice actor (the male one anyway) was horrible. The Warden, because he wasn't voiced, had way better dialog options.

'People' don't have a problem with a little reading, nice assumption though. And I've seen a lot of praise for both Hawke voice actors.

The Warden still had the same kind of dialogue choices, there were diplomatic, agressive, sarcastic and inquisitive ones. They were all written with a specific tone in mind and the NPCs react to it as such. If DA2 showed the full line of dialogue instead of a paraphrase (an optional toggle I wouldn't be adverse to if possible) and you then muted it, there would be even less difference between the two.

Really, why is 'voiced protagonist' a bad word? Purely because BioWare haven't made a game with one for a little while? Plenty of posters here seem happy to point out we still have games, both large and small, created featuring them so it's not a dying art form.

I have even noticed people excusing The Witcher and Risen etc because they have a fixed protagonist, which is kinda baffling for me. I can see what they mean "it was intended to be character x from the start" but then you could say the same about DA2.

All the choices and customisation options ultimately do is allow you to leave your own personal stamp on that pre-defined character; which, in a roundabout way brings me back to Filament and Kiwi's posts above as I too believe we are always playing a character BioWare have defined themselves, even if we get to pick their morality etc.

[Pasquale1234]

Filament wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I understand that some players prefer to watch and listen to Hawke act out the storyline.  From my perspective, it is a different genre altogether - not really a role-playing game, but a game with role-playing elements.

I don't think you understand that some of us simply don't see the value in the 'infinite' responses the Warden was able to give, since the game acknowledges only one per dialog choice. Some of us see DA2 as the same sort of "roleplaying game" as DAO ever was, except with a more expressive puppet. And lacking some important information about the choices, sometimes. (full text...)

I do quite understand that, thus the phrase "from my perspective".

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...
SNIP
So to this end, it is unlikely someone would be surprised by the options given.
SNIP

I would say that there is a considerable likelyhood that this notion is just an illusion.

First of all, - I was often surprised! And I wasn't delighted at all. Not the least.
I'm also very convinced that many, many players had this very same experience.
Then we actually have an early developer interview, where they boasted about coming up with ideas to surprise the player. 'Surprising the player' was an intentional design element in the dialogue wheel and voiced Hawke.

[JeeWeeJ]

And this...is why I think Bioware never should have changed DA2 so drastically as they have. Not because a (non-)voiced PC is bad, but because they changed too much within an already established franchise. (established as a classical BG like RPG, in this case with a silent PC)

In my honest opinion, if DA2 was instead launched as another game within the DA universe with no links to DAO whatsover, this whole discussion (and the whole s**tstorm after launch) would not have taken place. (or at least not as bad as it was back then)

[Pasquale1234]

JeeWeeJ wrote...

And this...is why I think Bioware never should have changed DA2 so drastically as they have. Not because a (non-)voiced PC is bad, but because they changed too much within an already established franchise. (established as a classical BG like RPG, in this case with a silent PC)

In my honest opinion, if DA2 was instead launched as another game within the DA universe with no links to DAO whatsover, this whole discussion (and the whole s**tstorm after launch) would not have taken place. (or at least not as bad as it was back then)

Agreed.  When they slapped the 2 on the title, I expected a sequel - not something done in a style that is so different from the original.

My own fault for not having paid any attention to the pre-release marketing, not playing the demo, etc.  I picked it up at Best Buy because I love DAO - and was massively surprised, not so much delighted.

[upsettingshorts]

batlin wrote...

Ironically, it's the voice acting that made it so hawke couldn't be anything but a human.

Don't care.

batlin wrote... 

I don't know what people's problem with doing a little reading is.

Not the point.

[JeeWeeJ]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Agreed.  When they slapped the 2 on the title, I expected a sequel - not something done in a style that is so different from the original.

My own fault for not having paid any attention to the pre-release marketing, not playing the demo, etc.  I picked it up at Best Buy because I love DAO - and was massively surprised, not so much delighted.

Same here, I played the demo, saw what it was, but still blindly preordered the game because: "IT'S DRAGON AGE!!! Made by the RPG wizards of Bioware! What can POSSIBLY go wrong?!?!?!?"

I know better now.. (and so do a lot of other ppl who expected DAO2)

[fchopin]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

I have even noticed people excusing The Witcher and Risen etc because they have a fixed protagonist, which is kinda baffling for me. I can see what they mean "it was intended to be character x from the start" but then you could say the same about DA2.

You misunderstood my point.
 
I don't care if the pc is voiced or not what i care is that i want a toggle for the full text so i know what my character will say.
 
I play both kind of games, voiced or not voiced and have no problem with either.

[Apollo Starflare]

fchopin wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

I have even noticed people excusing The Witcher and Risen etc because they have a fixed protagonist, which is kinda baffling for me. I can see what they mean "it was intended to be character x from the start" but then you could say the same about DA2.

You misunderstood my point.
 
I don't care if the pc is voiced or not what i care is that i want a toggle for the full text so i know what my character will say.
 
I play both kind of games, voiced or not voiced and have no problem with either.

To be fair I wasn't really referring to your post, just a general sentiment. As I said in my post I would like to see that toggle as well. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The important difference, I think, is that the events within an RPG challenge my character, while the events within other sorts of games challenge me, the player.

Just chiming in. I wanted to say that this simple comment illuminated your general attitude towards RPGs better than any other. I feel I understand your position much more clearly now. You and I (regarding the discussions we're having in another thread) view RPGs very differently.

In my opinion one of the fundamental rules of RPGs is: Challenge both the player and the character.

Let's assume a game is designed as you describe, to challenge both you and the character.  What happens then when you fail a challenge?  How does your character deal with that?  His reality has just been impacted by something that doesn't exist within his universe (you, the player, are not real from your character's perspective).  How can you maintain your PC's character when your PC's reality is being broken from without?

No, when roleplaying I view the game's events solely from the perspective of my character.  As such, my skill cannot be relevant because if I fail the setting breaks.  Look at Mass Effect.  Shepard's supposedly a highly skilled marskman, but if you injure your wrist or get drunk then suddenly he's a bad shot.  How does that make any sense to him?

[TEWR]

In regards to the silent protagonist, I find that the idea of a voiced protagonist is not an inherently bad one for RPGs. I find that the voiced protagonist enhances my roleplaying.

Obviously, peoples' opinions will differ on that, so bear in mind that this is all from my personal perspective.

I think that DAII's implementation of the voiced protagonist was flawed, but the idea still has merit. From the personality system to the dialogue wheel.

I want a personality system that actually makes sense and to be able to see the full line when choosing. I don't care if the latter is done by toggle or the full line shown at the top of the screen if I hover over the choices or Sylvius' proposal some time ago.

I still want to know the intent/tone of the choices, but I abhor the paraphrases. Even if Hawke says things that are similar to what I thought he would've said, I want the full line. He did surprise me a lot of the time. I didn't go "What the hell?!" that many times, but he did surprise me.

Had I known the full line of what he was going to say, I would've been more content with what he said because it wouldn't have surprised me.

EDIT: Eh, part of my post really served no purpose except to be a poor attempt at humor.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 mars 2012 - 08:43 .

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Let's assume a game is designed as you describe, to challenge both you and the character.  What happens then when you fail a challenge?  How does your character deal with that?  His reality has just been impacted by something that doesn't exist within his universe (you, the player, are not real from your character's perspective).  How can you maintain your PC's character when your PC's reality is being broken from without?

No, when roleplaying I view the game's events solely from the perspective of my character.  As such, my skill cannot be relevant because if I fail the setting breaks.  Look at Mass Effect.  Shepard's supposedly a highly skilled marskman, but if you injure your wrist or get drunk then suddenly he's a bad shot.  How does that make any sense to him?

Well, that's just it. I don't view the game solely form the perspective of my character. I think that's why we prioritise different things in an RPG. Take different mini-games for example. Do those puzzles make sense in an RPG from a character's point of view? Oftentimes no. They are there to test the player's skills, and that's why many players don't like them. That's perfectly OK.

I don't roleplay to the exclusion of all else. I like to have the game challenge me as well, to play to *my* strengths or vulnerabilities, and not only in a mechanical or gameplay sense. If I lost someone close to me, for example, a well made game exploring those kinds of issues will make an impact on me in a way it will never be able to by simply appealing to my character. I can't make that kind of disassociation from the character I am playing, nor would I want to. Every character I make is exploring a facet of my being, I don't know how *not* to infuse a part of myself in the experience. That, to me, is the point of RPGs. Not abandoning myself for a created character, but in a sense exploring myself. I have never found roleplaying games to be a primarily intellectual exercise, but rather an emotional one, a way to stimulate feelings of wonder, awe, curiosity, sadness, accomplishment, fear...

Of course, that kind of experience is more easily achieved in a tabletop RPG where there's familiarity and a degree of understanding between GM and players, so he's able to tailor the game to his players' preferences more fully. CRPGs are by their very nature unable to appeal to me directly, and any such connection is bound to be accidental, a case of a game and myself aligning in a way developers probably couldn't have foreseen, but that's no reason not to cherish that experience all the same.

That is why an RPG can't have logic as the be-all and end-all of game design, Sylvius. Of course, feel free to disagree. We are all unique, after all.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 02 mars 2012 - 09:04 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Well, that's just it. I don't view the game solely form the perspective of my character.

But in order to make his decisions for him, you need to view the world from his perspective at least some of the time.  So how does he deal with these inconsistencies?

I think that's why we prioritise different things in an RPG. Take different mini-games for example. Do those puzzles make sense in an RPG from a character's point of view? Oftentimes no. They are there to test the player's skills, and that's why many players don't like them. That's perfectly OK.

I don't roleplay to the exclusion of all else. I like to have the game challenge me as well, to play to *my* strengths or vulnerabilities, and not only in a mechanical or gameplay sense. If I lost someone close to me, for example, a well made game exploring those kinds of issues will make an impact on me in a way it will never be able to by simply appealing to my character. I can't make that kind of disassociation from the character I am playing, nor would I want to. Every character I make is exploring a facet of my being, I don't know how *not* to infuse a part of myself in the experience. That, to me, is the point of RPGs. Not abandoning myself for a created character, but in a sense exploring myself. I have never found roleplaying games to be a primarily intellectual exercise, but rather an emotional one, a way to stimulate feelings of wonder, awe, curiosity, sadness, accomplishment, fear...

Emotions themselves are an intellectual exercise.

In my opinion.

Of course, that kind of experience is more easily achieved in a tabletop RPG where there's familiarity and a degree of understanding between GM and players, so he's able to tailor the game to his players' preferences more fully. CRPGs are by their very nature unable to appeal to me directly, and any such connection is bound to be accidental, a case of a game and myself aligning in a way developers probably couldn't have foreseen, but that's no reason not to cherish that experience all the same.

That's all the more reason not to insert yourself into your character.  Instead, design your character such that the game world appeals to him, and then this problem goes away.

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But in order to make his decisions for him, you need to view the world from his perspective at least some of the time. So how does he deal with these inconsistencies?

He deals with them how I, the player, tell him to deal with them. My character is not self-aware, and he doesn't need to have his fourth wall preserved.

Emotions themselves are an intellectual exercise.

In my opinion.

No comment on this one.

That's all the more reason not to insert yourself into your character.  Instead, design your character such that the game world appeals to him, and then this problem goes away.

But I don't want to. Why should I play *my* character the way you want me to?

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 02 mars 2012 - 08:50 .

[Pasquale1234]

Filament wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I do quite understand that, thus the phrase "from my perspective".

I take it when you say we "prefer to watch and listen" that it's implied we accept your perspective about the differences between DAO and DA2 as our own. That we acknowledge that DAO offers a more active experience, but we simply "prefer" to be passive and let the game make choices for us. I don't acknowledge that, not from my perspective. I find DA2 to provide active involvement from the player just as much as DAO did.

I didn't intend to imply anything about what other players experience or how they play, and am making no attempt to speak for anyone other than myself.

[Fast Jimmy]

Mr. Fixit wrote...

But I don't want to. Why should I play *my* character the way you want me to?

Because the way you prefer to play actively prevents me from being able to play the way I enjoy playing. And not just me, but decades worth of RPGers who have consistently shown up to play RPGs that deliver flexibility meshed with powerful story. Watering down player choice and agency may float your boat, but if Bioware makes your game, they inherently cannot make mine. Meanwhile, without a voiced PC and implementing a deep character choice and creation process, Bioware can (and has before) still told a good story. 

Bioware going the classic route can still let all players enjoy the same type of game. Bioware going the new route forces players to enjoy their new style or not play. If they continue it into DA3, I will not be playing it 

[Mr Fixit]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Mr. Fixit wrote...

But I don't want to. Why should I play *my* character the way you want me to?

Because the way you prefer to play actively prevents me from being able to play the way I enjoy playing. And not just me, but decades worth of RPGers who have consistently shown up to play RPGs that deliver flexibility meshed with powerful story. Watering down player choice and agency may float your boat, but if Bioware makes your game, they inherently cannot make mine. Meanwhile, without a voiced PC and implementing a deep character choice and creation process, Bioware can (and has before) still told a good story. 

Bioware going the classic route can still let all players enjoy the same type of game. Bioware going the new route forces players to enjoy their new style or not play. If they continue it into DA3, I will not be playing it 

Jimmy, with all due respect, I am not entirely sure what you're answering to. I am not forcing you to play the game my way. I don't understand why you're taking those liberties with me. My argument with Sylvius has everything to do with him trying to convince me that my position on RPGs is somehow fundamentally wrong, as if there's my way or high way, dressed up, of course, in some fancy logic.

And you know what's even more interesting? The fact that all three of us, judging by your commenting history, have probably similar favourite games. You're not listening to me, Jimmy.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 02 mars 2012 - 09:19 .

[JeeWeeJ]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If they continue it into DA3, I will not be playing it 

And this...is what I'm so afraid of..  And nothing I have read so far has put that fear to rest. Must say that I don't know if I really want to hear what they're going to say on that PAX panel.. Feelings of doom and gloom and such...

[Yrkoon]

JeeWeeJ wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If they continue it into DA3, I will not be playing it 

And this...is what I'm so afraid of..  And nothing I have read so far has put that fear to rest. Must say that I don't know if I really want to hear what they're going to say on that PAX panel.. Feelings of doom and gloom and such...

Oh,   I wouldn't worry about that.   I'm sure they'll be using the most vague  and idealistic language imaginable  when  revealing DA3.

Look for   meaningless diplomatic phrases like:  "Bigger",  "Better",  "best of both worlds" and  "perfect mix of what people liked from both games",   and my personal favorite:  "We've really   focussed on giving the player choices this time.  Honest!"

Modifié par Yrkoon, 02 mars 2012 - 09:40 .

[JeeWeeJ]

Yrkoon wrote...

JeeWeeJ wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If they continue it into DA3, I will not be playing it 

And this...is what I'm so afraid of..  And nothing I have read so far has put that fear to rest. Must say that I don't know if I really want to hear what they're going to say on that PAX panel.. Feelings of doom and gloom and such...

Oh,   I wouldn't worry about that.   I'm sure they'll be using the most vague  and idealistic language imaginable  when promoting DA3 at PAX.

Look for   meaningless diplomatic phrases like  "best of both worlds" and  "perfect mix of what people liked from both games",   and my personal favorite:  "We've really   focussed on giving the player choices this time.  Honest!"

Don't forget "next in line in the critically acclaimed Dragon Age series" and I feel the awesome button will need some love aswell.. But I'm going horrendously offtopic here!

[Morroian]

fchopin wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Third person role playing, its still role playing because you're identifying with the character.

Sorry but that is wrong, it is not role playing but role watching like role watching an NPC that is not part of the player. Role playing needs control on knowing what the player character will say before the player says anything.

Sorry but you are wrong, I had enough control to role play Hawke to the extent I wanted to, and by identifying with Hawke s/he becomes an extention of the player.

fchopin wrote...
I don't care if the pc is voiced or not what i care is that i want a toggle for the full text so i know what my character will say.

We can agree on that, BW have to add it in for DA3.

HolyAvenger wrote...
What I take from this thread is that "roleplaying" means very different things to different people, and no matter what direction BioWare take, someone will be disappointed. Can't satisfy everyone.

Exactly yet some will still insist that those of us who like DA2 are not role playing.

batlin wrote...
I don't know what people's problem with doing a little reading is. 

It doesn't follow that people don't like a silent protag because they don't want to read, heck Skyrim is close to being GOAT for me witha  silent protag.

Wulfram wrote...
What's really shocking reading that article now is the claim that "Technology-wise, we really focused a lot of attention on the lighting engine", because the lighting really seems to be a step back for me.

Mileage varies I think the lighting in DA2 is far above DAO.

Modifié par Morroian, 02 mars 2012 - 10:00 .

[Wulfram]

Voice protagonists are OK, paraphrases are tolerable. What I find very difficult to swallow is the decision to chop out player choice even more with "Dominant Tone" and stuff like that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

He deals with them how I, the player, tell him to deal with them. My character is not self-aware, and he doesn't need to have his fourth wall preserved.

So you're not roleplaying.

That's what roleplaying is.  Your character is a complete person.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 mars 2012 - 10:49 .

[MagmaSaiyan]

like ive said in another thread, i dont hate a silent protagonist(Crono and Serge awesome), but with Hawke i enjoy hearing my character talk and him talking without having to choosing a line