337 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Emotions themselves are an intellectual exercise.

In my opinion.

If I understand you opinion, I think it's backed up by what we know of the brain. Emotions are part and parcel of complex decision making and rationality. For human beings, you can't have one without the other.

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Hihihi

Honestly, I've been waiting for that comment. I just love them definition police.
 
Yes, I am roleplaying in a way that I find the most agreeing. I draw upon my own experiences and emotions when crafting a character. I suppose I could do it your way, disassociate myself from the character completely, but I find it brings nothing of use to me. It would be a hollow intellectual exercise of "let's see what happens". In your approximate words from another thread, it would be my character laughing and crying, not myself.

For me, the true beauty of roleplaying is exactly the thing you seem to abhor the most: making yourself a part (only a part) of the character, experiencing the game in such a way that you can more fully relate with it. I want to discover a side of myself that is hidden or buried. My characters, both in PnP and in CRPGs often exibit behavior I myself would be too uncomfortable showing in real life, therefore serving as a creative outlet of sorts. I can't have those things in a character that is completely independent from my wants and desires or my fears and weaknesses.

I am truly sorry for you if you can't understand that motivation. It *is* roleplaying, whether you agree with it or not.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Honestly, I've been waiting for that comment. I just love them definition police.
 
Yes, I am roleplaying in a way that I find the most agreeing. I draw upon my own experiences and emotions when crafting a character. I suppose I could do it your way, disassociate myself from the character completely, but I find it brings nothing of use to me. It would be a hollow intellectual exercise of "let's see what happens". In your approximate words from another thread, it would be my character laughing and crying, not myself.

For me, the true beauty of roleplaying is exactly the thing you seem to abhor the most: making yourself a part (only a part) of the character, experiencing the game in such a way that you can more fully relate with it. I want to discover a side of myself that is hidden or buried. My characters, both in PnP and in CRPGs often exibit behavior I myself would be too uncomfortable showing in real life, therefore serving as a creative outlet of sorts. I can't have those things in a character that is completely independent from my wants and desires or my fears and weaknesses.

You've missed my point.

There's no reason why the character you create can't share traits with you.  I'm sure some people prefer that.  I certainly do.

But, with your traits included, he still needs to be a complete person.  You've been describing something different, though.  You've been describing a shell or avatar into which you project yourself.  The character you're playing might share some traits with you, but he's not relevantly similar to a person at all in the sense that he doesn't perceive his reality from his own perspective.

That's all the knowledge we have of the world around us: our perception of it.  But you're denying your character even that, and instead saddling him with your perception of his reality.

I admit, I do play the games primarily as a let's see what happens exercise, because that's the gameplay experience I want.  But a game that permits what I do does not prevent what you do.

As for discovering sides of yourself, I don't understand how one could not already be fully aware of the details of one's self.  Your entire life is a process of experiencing your reactions to stimulus.  Furthermore, you have direct access to your own consciousness for the purpose of running thought experiments.  As much as I claim that the minds of others are unknowable, I don't understand how one's own mind could be anything less than fully known.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 mars 2012 - 11:51 .

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The character you're playing might share some traits with you, but he's not relevantly similar to a person at all in the sense that he doesn't perceive his reality from his own perspective.

Well, he sure doesn't perceive his reality from my perspective. Is my character an amalgam? Maybe, but I still don't see how that is anything other than roleplaying.

I admit, I do play the games primarily as a let's see what happens exercise, because that's the gameplay experience I want.

I am happy for you. Then why are you trying to show me the folly of *my* ways? Is the way you enjoy games fundamentally more correct than mine?

As for discovering sides of yourself, I don't understand how one could not already be fully aware of the details of one's self.  As much as I claim that the minds of others are unknowable, I don't understand how one's own mind could be anything less than fully known.

I beg your pardon? If there is one thing we'll never truly understand, it's ourselves, the depths of our subconscious, of our strengths and weaknesses, the deepest reaches of our psyche. You took a question that has been at the forefront of philosophy and psychology for countless centuries and gave it such a trivial answer, it's just laughable. 

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 03 mars 2012 - 12:25 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Well, he sure doesn't perceive his reality from my perspective. Is my character an amalgam? Maybe, but I still don't see how that is anything other than roleplaying.

If he's not a complete person then he fails to be a role for you to play.

I'm not claiming that the PC cannot be a flat character, but does need to be a character.  And that's not what you're describing.

You're not playing a character.  You're playing a game.

I am happy for you. Then why are you trying to show me the folly of *my* ways? Is the way you enjoy games fundamentally more correct than mine?

The way I enjoy the game requires that I never be surprised by my character's behaviour.  Since I am acting on the character's behalf, I need exhaustive knowledge of the contents of his mind.  If I lack that, I cannot guarantee that his behaviour will be internall consistent.  I wouldn't know his values or principles well enough to predict his behaviour, thus denying me anything resembling control.

I beg your pardon? If there is one thing we'll never truly understand, it's ourselves, the depths of our subconscious, of our strengths and weaknesses, the deepest reaches of our psyche.

Nonsense.  If you take the time to make reasoned decisions, your reasoning cannot surprise you.

You took a question that has been at the forefront of philosophy and psychology for countless centuries and gave it such a trivial answer, it's just laughable. 

Psychology, as a discipline, is laughable.  As for philosophy, epistemology has dealt with this issue quite satisfactorially (though psychologists don't like the answer), and metaphysics has always been nothing more than wishcasting.

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If he's not a complete person then he fails to be a role for you to play.

Says who? You? Are you the sole arbiter of what is and isn't roleplaying? Is there some certificate I have to obtain in order to qualify for this prestigious order of "pure roleplayers"? Man, are you that insecure that you have this compulsive need to be "right"? To repeat one and the same ad nauseam until I surrender to your logic and admit: "Yes, Sylvius, I am not a roleplayer!"?

Do find me a definition that supports you, and doesn't include me.

Psychology, as a discipline, is laughable.  As for philosophy, epistemology has dealt with this issue quite satisfactorially (though psychologists don't like the answer), and metaphysics has always been nothing more than wishcasting.

I do love me such renaissance men like you. Is there a field of study you aren't so fully proficient with?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

I do love me such renaissance men like you. Is there a field of study you aren't so fully proficient with?

Anything that studies something I claim doesn't exist.  Like empathy.  Or groups.

If a field interests me, I learn about it.  But my real strengths are logic and rational decision theory.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 mars 2012 - 12:58 .

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

I do love me such renaissance men like you. Is there a field of study you aren't so fully proficient with?

Anything that studies something I claim doesn't exist.  Like empathy.  Or groups.

If a field interests me, I learn about it.  But my real strengths are logic and rational decision theory.

You forgot another field of your paramount interest: self-verification theory.

[YohkoOhno]

Edit--nevermind, it's speculation.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 03 mars 2012 - 02:11 .

[TEWR]

I don't think one should presume to know what Sylvius does or doesn't have.

I get the feeling that Sylvius is one of the most respected members of the forum by the devs, and I've found that he does make good points.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 03 mars 2012 - 02:09 .

[Mr Fixit]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote..

I get the feeling that Sylvius is one of the most respected members of the forum by the devs, and I've found that he does make good points.

I don't spend much time here, so I wouldn't know. What I do see, however, is his complete inability to understand where another is coming from.

[MerinTB]

Mr Fixit wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote..
I get the feeling that Sylvius is one of the most respected members of the forum by the devs, and I've found that he does make good points.

I don't spend much time here, so I wouldn't know. What I do see, however, is his complete inability to understand where another is coming from.

It tracks.  You did read, earlier, where he stated point-blank that he doesn't believe in empathy, didn't you?  It was like a page or two ago.

2+2=4

[Yrkoon]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Lack of understanding basic psychology or empathy means Sylvius would fail to be a good game designer.

Sylvius clearly either has Asperger's, Autism, or something akin to that, because he seems to have a lot of trouble understanding why 99% of people play these games, especially considering how he rejects some elements of science (psychology, even the concept of emotional appeal), and has a rigid sense of logic that is akin to a neurosis.  I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but it's clear that arguing with him won't get anywhere, as I don't think he sees the world the same way most of us do.  

While as long as he's happy, it's fine, I think in many cases this disqualifies him from making any useful statement regarding RPGs, at least how they appeal to people and what RPGs is. So I think it is useless to argue with him, as you aren't on the same perceptual levels.  He seems to think role-assumption is not part of the RPG, and that the only way you can enjoy these games is to know and control every part of the motivations and psyche of the characters, which is clearly not the case.

Wow, what a completely meaningless post.  Might have had  some shred of value.... if the thread topic was:   "Why is Sylvanius the Mad a bad word these days".....  But alas,  it's NOT.


Incidently: 

YohkoOhno wrote...
Sylvius clearly either has Asperger's, Autism, or something akin to that, because he seems to have a lot of trouble understanding why 99% of people play these games

Er....  Whole Corporations, focus groups and  branches  of Sociology have been pouring over the question of  "why do people play X" for several years now.  And they're no closer  to reaching an agreed upon answer that you are.  Let me give you some advice:   Take a few psychology classes before attempting to Diagnose people for mental/physiological conditions.

But where were we?  Oh yeah.     Voiced Protagonists.

Pros: 
1)I don't have to read  what my character says anymore!  (woot!)
2) It's more 'realistic'  (Because that's what  makes for good fantasy:  Realism)
3) Neato movie-like cutscenes I can watch.

Cons:
1) This voice actor sucks.  So I'm facepalming for 50 friggin hours, as I trudge through the game listening to a voice actor who sucks.   
2)  MY character  that *I* made, and *I'm*   playing  is using someone else's voice.  What's next for the Cinematic game plan?  Are they gonna have someone fighting for me?   Making my decisions for me?  Playing the game for me?
3)  I want to be able to choose a sarcastic response and not cringe at  its voiced application.
4)   Immersion killing.  Period.  I don't want to watch 2 people talking to each other.  I want to be BE one of those people and imagine myself talking to the other person.  Because that's  what gaming is about.  When you do something to take ME out of the game, then I'm no longer  in the game,  I'm outside looking in.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 mars 2012 - 02:42 .

[Senzen Sumnor]

I don't expect Bioware ever to release another game with a silent protagonist. Today's gamers just can't stomach that, they need that voice. I don't know what it is, they don't like to read, they lack an imagination? The problem of course with a voiced protagonist is that it hampers roleplay. My character doesn't sound like that? Why did he put emphasis on that particular word? Or you wind up just disliking the voice in general (e.g. I can't stand the voice actor for Commander Shepherd). The other pet peeve I have is the dialogue wheel. I hate it, almost 80% of the time the words that come out of PC's mouth is not what I expected them to say based on the one or two word description.

[MerinTB]

Novel vs. movie.

Imagination and filling in details for yourself for (what you feel is) a richer experience
versus
Everything decided and displayed for you, so you can sit back and watch someone else's imagination at work but it is (you feel) more entertaining because you get the visuals and audio provided for you and (you feel) it is more exciting this way than the action playing out in your head.

I think it's a good analogy. It's not mine, originally, but I think it is apt.

[YohkoOhno]

I don't know what it is, they don't like to read, they lack an imagination?

I really wish people wouldn't judge the people who like the VO as somehow being lesser or a character flaw. It's saddening to see all the improvements in the industry and yet people act like old "get off my lawn kids" men.

Most people embrace technology improvements--people said the same thing about television when it replaced Radio's role. Similarly, there's a big reason text and point-and-click adventure games went from being a dominant genre to a niche. And there's a reason why Wizardry and Ultima evolved into Quest for Glory and Baldur's Gate and then Dragon Age and Mass Effect.

This medium is in its infancy and it's just gonna keep changing.  While I accept we can lose something in the medium's evolution, I also think for the most part the games are getting better, and I fear Bioware's biggest problem is living up to the platonic ideal--the people who want them to keep created BG forever and ever.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 03 mars 2012 - 02:52 .

[Yrkoon]

I, for one, am not so quick to simply assume that "today's gamers" can no longer stomach a silent protagonist. Skyrim just came out a few months ago, and is shattering all-time  western RPG sales records left and right. Its protagonist is Silent.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 mars 2012 - 03:01 .

[Tommyspa]

Yrkoon wrote...

I, for one, am not so quick to simply assume that "today's gamers" can no longer stomach a silent protagonist. Skyrim just came out a few months ago, and is shattering all-time RPG sales records left and right. Its protagonist is Silent.

There is a slight difference in Bethesda story telling than BioWare's story telling, and by slight I mean huge. The silent protag feels dated in heavy story driven games.

[Yrkoon]

Fair enough. How about.... DA:O slightly outsolded DA2, and by slightly I mean doubled its sales. DA:O had a silent protagonist.

[TEWR]

Yrkoon wrote...

I, for one, am not so quick to simply assume that "today's gamers" can no longer stomach a silent protagonist. Skyrim just came out a few months ago, and is shattering all-time RPG sales records left and right. Its protagonist is Silent.

Indeed. While I prefer voiced protagonists in an RPG, I am not adverse to silent protagonists. I did enjoy playing as the Warden and the Dragonborn respectively. That they were silent did little to bar me from enjoying the game.

The prevailing falsehood amongst many people is that people who prefer voiced protagonists automatically lack imagination or are "dumber" then people that like the silent protagonists. That's simply not the case. For me, the idea of a voiced protagonist enhances my roleplaying, unless the game goes out of its way to prevent me from roleplaying the way I want to.

And if there is some God-awful voice acting. Then it becomes somewhat painful. It's why I can't stand Jo Wyatt as FemHawke.

Granted, the reasons why it enhances my roleplaying are different then other peoples'. While other people may enjoy it for the consistency or the increased amount of expressions or whatnot, my reasons are my own that I believe no one else shares.

As I said on the previous page, I believe the idea of a voiced protagonist still has merit but requires a lot of refining to make it work. The only thing DAII did right in that regard was giving the PC a voice, but that's only one part of the entire package.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 03 mars 2012 - 03:07 .

[YohkoOhno]

Corelation does not equal causation.

Maybe people hated DA2 for other things it did wrong, and not the voice PO. Maybe DA:O sold better during a holiday season. Maybe the metrics show 2 million people thought they were buying an action game instead of an RPG and half the people quit 1/3rd way through. There are lots of reasons. Considering Mass Effect 2 and The Witcher 2 have (the former) commerical and (the latter) critical success, this seems to be the way games are going nowadays.

[Senzen Sumnor]

YohkoOhno wrote...

I don't know what it is, they don't like to read, they lack an imagination?

I really wish people wouldn't judge the people who like the VO as somehow being lesser or a character flaw. It's saddening to see all the improvements in the industry and yet people act like old "get off my lawn kids" men.

Most people embrace technology improvements--people said the same thing about television when it replaced Radio's role. Similarly, there's a big reason text and point-and-click adventure games went from being a dominant genre to a niche. And there's a reason why Wizardry and Ultima evolved into Quest for Glory and Baldur's Gate and then Dragon Age and Mass Effect.

This medium is in its infancy and it's just gonna keep changing.  While I accept we can lose something in the medium's evolution, I also think for the most part the games are getting better, and I fear Bioware's biggest problem is living up to the platonic ideal--the people who want them to keep created BG forever and ever.

For someone who doesn't want to be judged, you're certainly doing a lot of judging.  If my comment hurt your feelings, I am sorry.  But those were just best guesses based on what I hear from gamers today.  You don't know how many times I've hear the phrase "If I wanted to read a book, I wouldn't be playing a video game."  I'm all for embracing technology if it makes game experience better and for me the voice protagonist doesn't make roleplay better, it actually does the opposite.

[YohkoOhno]

I take no offense, I like to read. I just think there's a trend to dismiss new stuff in general.

For instance, recently there's been a rumor of a BG port, and I see people getting upset that it's being ported to the "crappy iPhone", and it would be an insult to experience BG "on a tablet".   Excuse me--that's a way to get those Infinity Engine games a little more popularity, and people dismiss it because it's not the way it was intended?

But reading's always had a minority to other mediums--literacy itself wasn't common until a few hundred years ago, and the Western World has always embraced things like Film. Movies are usually always more popular than the books that are adapted, for instance. It's not a new trend.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 03 mars 2012 - 03:19 .

[Yrkoon]

  Damn... just saw this...

YohkoOhno wrote...

Most people embrace technology improvements--people said the same thing about television when it replaced Radio's role. Similarly, there's a big reason text and point-and-click adventure games went from being a dominant genre to a niche. And there's a reason why Wizardry and Ultima evolved into Quest for Glory and Baldur's Gate and then Dragon Age and Mass Effect.

Claiming that  a voiced protagonist is a technological improvement simply because you can now 'hear" what your character is saying is... well.... pure  opinion, and nothing more.

It's like saying that  a  3rd person camera view is a technological improvement to a 1st person camera view because you can now "see" your character's whole body.     That's an opinion and you're going to get Tons of disagreement.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 mars 2012 - 03:27 .

[YohkoOhno]

I'm not arguing about voice protagonist but in general the improvements. We can debate about the avatar method verses the persona method, but clearly games are becoming more cinema like because that's what the people want. For instance, I could never go back to silent text-only RPGs because I enjoy the voiced versions better. Others could, but they seem to be in the minority.

I think as time passes on people will prefer voiced to silent, you're already seeing evidence of that. Just look at how gamers are quick trash developers for the "age of their engine" (more primitive graphics).

I suspect silent protagonists are going to become a minority in most games of all genres.  Whether or not people like or hate that is a seperate issue.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 03 mars 2012 - 03:30 .