Modifié par esper, 01 mars 2012 - 08:29 .
That's completely beside the point. What matters isn't that stopping the Blight is the only available path. What matters is that the path is chosen by the player.Lynata wrote...
No, I think you are missing my point. Given that stopping the Blight is part of DA:O you can not complete the game, so the only question is where you stop playing.
'Potentially misleading"? How about "demonstrably obfuscatory"?If it bothers you that much, is there no way to simply disable voice audios and enabling subtitles? Apart from the potentially misleading context wheel, this should "fix" the issue completely, wouldn't it?
You're still missing the point. In the City Elf origin, your PC kills many people. But every time, you're the one who pulled the trigger. The player ultimately made the choice to have his character kill. That's not the case in DA2. DA2 has Hawke act without consulting the player first.Try completing the DA:O City Elf Origin without killing anyone, though!
Cstaf wrote...
Hmm, wierd. For a guy called Sylvius the mad he does make pretty good arguments.
Modifié par MerinTB, 01 mars 2012 - 11:14 .
Leon481 wrote...
@MerinTB
Exactly. That's why I'm more of a fan of brainstorming ways they can give us more choices while in the confines of their narrative. More choices to determine who our character is. More paths to follow in the story. More ways to resolve situations.
I firmly believe that there are ways they can keep going in the directon they are heading and still give us roleplaying freedom. It doesn't have to be either/or as some of the people on this board seem to believe.
The devs seem to think they can somehow avoid doing that while maintaining a voiced protagonist. If they can, I'm eager to see it.MerinTB wrote...
They railroad my character, however, into doing things that I don't want them doing or saying, and we have a problem.
That seems to depend entirely on the perspective. If one were to be as appalled by a voiced player character as you are then yes, of course this seems much more important than a lack of opportunities to deviate from the predefined main arcs in ways that I'd deem more fitting for my character.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's completely beside the point.
Modifié par Lynata, 01 mars 2012 - 11:36 .
I don't get the "must" part, either. In truth, I'm not entirely opposed to a voiced protagonist, because, if carefully done, the character still feels much like it is my character and that character feels much more involved in the world than a static silent protagonist. I call DA2 a partial success for me in that regard since the character Bioware and the voice actor were making was similar to what I was aiming for anyway. Though that was happenstance. It can be done, but not easily and only with many options. I've reached the point where I can enjoy both voiced and unvoiced in my RPG.JasonPogo wrote...
I just don't get this new attiude that main character must be voice acted. In an RPG like DA i feel the main character has to be silent. I mean we are makeing our own Hawke. Yet when you voice them they are not ours anymore they are whatever the voice actor made them. I don't know i guess i am just a butthurt oldschool gamer but I feel that the voiced protaganist has a place. Just not in these kinds of games. A good game is more important then a cool markating image.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The devs seem to think they can somehow avoid doing that while maintaining a voiced protagonist. If they can, I'm eager to see it.MerinTB wrote...
They railroad my character, however, into doing things that I don't want them doing or saying, and we have a problem.
But I'm not optimistic. They've had three tries at this, and they've failed to give the player meaningful control in any of them.
Modifié par Leon481, 01 mars 2012 - 11:44 .
That's not the case at all. In DA2's case, the character acts, surprising the player, and the player then needs to redo a bunch of reasoning to figure out how to maintain the coherence of his character, assuming that's even possible without reloading.Lynata wrote...
But that you make such a big difference between the game automatically triggering something or the game presenting you with a single "option" does not seem very logical to me, as in both cases the end result is the same.
Ignoring the concept of implication, to which I take considerable exception, you're ignoring the player's ignorance of what the DA2 options actually are.A "choice" implies a selection of options, this is not the case in the example I have given.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The devs seem to think they can somehow avoid doing that while maintaining a voiced protagonist. If they can, I'm eager to see it.MerinTB wrote...
They railroad my character, however, into doing things that I don't want them doing or saying, and we have a problem.
But I'm not optimistic. They've had three tries at this, and they've failed to give the player meaningful control in any of them.
I actually don't like the personality system. My characters don't always react the same way. They may be sarcastic in some circumstances, but the personality system forces them to be sarcastic in even serious circumstances where they would sober up. I like the concept by I don't like my character being hijacked.Leon481 wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The devs seem to think they can somehow avoid doing that while maintaining a voiced protagonist. If they can, I'm eager to see it.MerinTB wrote...
They railroad my character, however, into doing things that I don't want them doing or saying, and we have a problem.
But I'm not optimistic. They've had three tries at this, and they've failed to give the player meaningful control in any of them.
They can. The personality system could have worked very well for this, but they half assed it. The character was "in personality" for some scenes but not others and there was a very large disconnect in those moments. They need to go further and build story events around the personality we choose for our character, not reset to their default for set scenes just because it's easier. They could also give us more various choices on what to say and even give us choices of how to make our character act or react. This way they can railroad the story all they want, but the character will still be ours.
But they still wouldn't know why we'd chosen that path. We could be nice to someone because we like them, or because we value politeness, or because we're being watched by someone who think's we're nice, or because we need him to think we're nice so we can kill his boss or rob his family or any number of nasty things.philippe willaume wrote...
I think this is feasible
Either as Leon481 mentioned or by have deeper converstion trees so that conversation result is not evaluated on 3 options but the sum dialogue 1 leading to dialog 2 leading to dialog 3.
Or a combination of both
Whilst I like DA2 I agree that this should be what Bioware should aim for.Leon481 wrote...
@MerinTB
Exactly. That's why I'm more of a fan of brainstorming ways they can give us more choices while in the confines of their narrative. More choices to determine who our character is. More paths to follow in the story. More ways to resolve situations.
I firmly believe that there are ways they can keep going in the directon they are heading and still give us roleplaying freedom. It doesn't have to be either/or as some of the people on this board seem to believe.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But they still wouldn't know why we'd chosen that path. We could be nice to someone because we like them, or because we value politeness, or because we're being watched by someone who think's we're nice, or because we need him to think we're nice so we can kill his boss or rob his family or any number of nasty things.philippe willaume wrote...
I think this is feasible
Either as Leon481 mentioned or by have deeper converstion trees so that conversation result is not evaluated on 3 options but the sum dialogue 1 leading to dialog 2 leading to dialog 3.
Or a combination of both
What we do doesn't matter as much as why we do it, and BioWare can't ever know why we do things.
Lord Aesir wrote...
I actually don't like the personality system. My characters don't always react the same way. They may be sarcastic in some circumstances, but the personality system forces them to be sarcastic in even serious circumstances where they would sober up. I like the concept by I don't like my character being hijacked.Leon481 wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The devs seem to think they can somehow avoid doing that while maintaining a voiced protagonist. If they can, I'm eager to see it.MerinTB wrote...
They railroad my character, however, into doing things that I don't want them doing or saying, and we have a problem.
But I'm not optimistic. They've had three tries at this, and they've failed to give the player meaningful control in any of them.
They can. The personality system could have worked very well for this, but they half assed it. The character was "in personality" for some scenes but not others and there was a very large disconnect in those moments. They need to go further and build story events around the personality we choose for our character, not reset to their default for set scenes just because it's easier. They could also give us more various choices on what to say and even give us choices of how to make our character act or react. This way they can railroad the story all they want, but the character will still be ours.
I would say that we are in total control of the player,I would assume that most of us know what they are doing most of the time .YohkoOhno wrote...
Your not in total control of the player.
In many cases, we assume a role. We should consider that we have some meta-control over the personality but not total control. I see playing games like Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect and The Witcher as controling fate. I control the fate of the story by making critical choices, but I don't control the actual character. Instead of controlling what my character thinks, I either try to assume the role of the persona I am presented with, or I choose a fate for my character by chosing the possibilities I want to see--I choose Paragon for ME because I want to see what a heroic character will do, not because I have any illusions of control.
If people understand this method, I think they will be happier with the games.
MerinTB wrote...
Can I just interject here -
being able to role-play your character and make decisions for your character != absolute freedom to do whatever you want
If you table top play a game of, let's say, Dark Crusade (Warhammer 40K RPG), you cannot ever become a Jedi nor can you ever join the Avengers. There are limits on what you can do, based on game rules and setting. But you can still decide that your character is trying to stop following Chaos or will spare the life of a Space Marine for some reason.
To say that there are constraints on your "freedom to do whatever you want" is a sophistic argument.
And it's a strawman.
May I also add -
Player character having certain conditions preset, certain situations mandated to happen != player has no choices
You have created a false dichotomy by pointing out, let's just say, that DA:O "forces" you to be a Grey Warden at some point and "forces" you to stop the Blight, and therefore DA:O railroads. These are certain prerequisites of the setting/story of the game.
To call this railroading is a gross misunderstanding of what that means and what a role-playing campaign IS.
For one, railroading is where the guy running the game forces you to keep solving problems, head in directions, or make decisions in a certain way where the decisions are not necessitated by story, setting, rules -
like, say, presenting a promiscuous lying pirate women as an NPC and TELLING you that you instantly befriend her and have agreed to work for her, and when you finally confront the two sides of a conflic you are FORCED to fight both sides.
A computer game will have a limited set of resources available to the player when the players starts the game. Unlimited options will not be available.
Nor are they available in almost any realistic table top RPG game, either.
See, the person running the campaign has picked a game (say D&D 3.5), setting (say, Eberron), and story (say working for the Silver Flame to adventure into the Mournland.) You COULD argue that the DM is railroading the players into not allowing them to work FOR the Lord of Blades, or start on Krynn, or play members of the Teen Titans, or begin at 20th level...
or you could stop arguing with logical fallacies. <_<
Modifié par Estherra Drack, 02 mars 2012 - 12:27 .
Not to mention that Lynata's claim is flat out wrong, anyway. You can make immense progress in DA:O without gatherng a single army or stopping the blight. You can complete about 80% of the game, in fact. After leaving Lothering, the player can wander the world, doing tons of miscellanious stuff, some of it, major. You can do Andraste's ashes quest (for example). You can explore Denerim and its back allies. You can clear out the Bracilian forest. You can go to Orzammar and take out the Carta, Become a Proving champion, and traverse the entirety of the game's deep roads. You can do the majority of the Circle/Chantry/Blackstone Irregulars/thieves/Slim Couldry quests. You can save Redcliffe. You can do the majority of your companions personal quests. You can do all 3 main-game-based DLCs to completionSylvius the Mad wrote...
I didn't claiom you could choose not to stop the Blight or gather armies. I claimed that you weren't forced to do it. I claimed that if you did it, it was because you chose to do so.Lynata wrote...
Of course this would basically mean no progress in the game at all, but it's the same as the suggestion above about simply choosing not to stop the Blight or gather any armies.
I am not claiming that in order for something to be a player choice there must have been another available alternative. I'm saying that the player needs to be the one who makes the decision, even if the decision is pre-decided.
Modifié par Yrkoon, 02 mars 2012 - 01:17 .
YohkoOhno wrote...
Your not in total control of the player.
In many cases, we assume a role. We should consider that we have some meta-control over the personality but not total control. I see playing games like Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect and The Witcher as controling fate. I control the fate of the story by making critical choices, but I don't control the actual character. Instead of controlling what my character thinks, I either try to assume the role of the persona I am presented with, or I choose a fate for my character by chosing the possibilities I want to see--I choose Paragon for ME because I want to see what a heroic character will do, not because I have any illusions of control.
If people understand this method, I think they will be happier with the games.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
DA2 constantly catches the play off-guard with Hawke's words and actions. The player cannot choose any option within the game and have any confidence at all that Hawke will behave in a way that is consistent with the player's design for Hawke, nor with Hawke's motives for any previous actions. Literally every single dialogue option in DA2 is potentially character-breaking, regardless of what the player chooses. As is every cutscene in which Hawke takes any action at all.
DAO's dialogue options can only break the Warden if the player chooses a character-breaking option. If all of the options are character-breaking, then that's a problem, but at least then the player knows what's going on and can either revise his character or start again with a different Warden.
And by voicing the protagonist, the range of options available to the player are dramatically limited. In DA2, there are, for example, 5 dialoue options available. Each is voiced in a specific way, so there are 5 total things Hawke can do in that moment. Even ignoring that the player has no idea what those 5 options actually entail until after he has chosen them, there are 5 options.
The tone icons don't provide anywhere near enough information. If I choose Aggressive, toward what or whom will Hawke be aggressive? That's never clear, and having to guess is completely unacceptable.LinksOcarina wrote...
I have to disagree. One of the problems with the first Mass Effect was we didn't know intent of what was saying in the wheel, unless if it was color-coded by the text in some form. But a pattern is typically seen in Dragon Age 2 with questions and responses, top option is usually diplomatic, bottom option agressive. They also color-coded the wheel to reflect the response with both image and color, and even slanted the tone of dialogue to reflect the base personalities when picking neutral options or going through the cut-scenes.
That is important to note, tone. One of the issues you seem to have is this narrow view of intent of the player vs the intent of the game. The tone of what is said is pretty much what you are looking for, the only thing out of your hands is what is said in the end, but not how it's said. The thing is, there shouldn't be a difference between them because the tone of what you say or do is just as important as the words that come out of ones mouth.
It happened to me repeatedly thrjoughout the game. Literally dozens of times in the first two acts (I never could get through Act III) Hawke delivered a line in a way that made me wish I'd chosen a different line.So to this end, it is unlikely someone would be surprised by the options given.
Pasquale1234 wrote...
Yes, you are playing a role - the role of the director of an interactive movie.
Pasquale1234 wrote...
Contrast that with the Warden - who had an infinite number of responses available (the printed responses could be embellished to suit the specific Warden being played), and they could be delivered with whatever sorts of inflections and gestures the player imagines for the Warden.
Third person role playing, its still role playing because you're identifying with the character.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.
Retour en haut