410 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No game with this voice+paraphrase system is even vaguely good.

A normative claim?

[Maria Caliban]

Yrkoon wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...
Actually I liked Da2's ambient banter the way it was and I certainly have no desire for the level of control you describe it belongs back in the 1960's along with the beatles and STD's not in the 21st century but thats me 

Oh god, not this  "it's outdated!"  argument  again.

I have to agree with this. I played a silent protagonist in Kingdoms of Amalur and Skyrim, both of which are modern games, and they worked.

Voice protagonists are useful for the more cinematic style of storytelling that BioWare favors, but that's not the same as being inherently better.

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I also think this heavy use of cinematics takes away from its impact.  But that's a topic for a different thread.

I'd suggest that's a (unspecified) goal. If something has impact*, you notice it. BioWare wants the cinematics to be so common that they meld together in your mind with the gameplay.

And to some extent, I think they've succeeded for me. For example, when the 'camera' in DA swooped over and up while a group of character's walked for the first time, I noticed it. But there are times in the Gallows where the camera switches to an overhead view in order to frame one of the slave statues in the conversation. I never noticed that until I started taking screenshots and studying the composition** of the shots.

* Semantics, I guess. Impact, to me, implies a splashy, obvious reaction. The first chestburster scene in aliens has an impact as I'm highly aware that it's terrifying me. The use of dim light and faded metal for the interior of the spaceship has an unconscious influence on me while I'm watching.

** I don't have a visual art background and suspect I'm misusing the word composition.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 16 mars 2012 - 05:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd suggest that's a (unspecified) goal. If something has impact*, you notice it. BioWare wants the cinematics to be so common that they meld together in your mind with the gameplay.

If that were their goal, they'd stop using things like depth-of-field effects in their cinematics.  Because they don't use those during regular gameplay, so all they do is draw attention to the different state of the game.

I would further argue that depriving the player of camera control does the same thing.  Or making the UI disappear.

Basically, unless they make the entire game behave like the cinematics do, they cannot achieve the goal you describe.

** I don't have a visual art background and suspect I'm misusing the word composition.

The cinematographic theory course I took at university thinks you're using the word correctly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No game with this voice+paraphrase system is even vaguely good.

A normative claim?

Descriptive.  Though, if challenged, my defense of it would rely on normative claims about how roleplaying works.  But they would be logically coherent normative claims.

[Melca36]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I want to lose the conversation interface completely. How NWN handled dialogue was the way to go. Don't change the UI - just drop the dialogue into the text box that's already on the screen. Do not remove the player's camera control.

Cinematic conversations are a bad idea. I'd like all dialogue to be ambient dialogue, and all PC lines should be chosen directly by the player (none of that auto-dialogue like in Legacy).

Actually I liked Da2's ambient banter the way it was and I certainly have no desire for the level of control you describe it belongs back in the 1960's along with the beatles and STD's not in the 21st century but thats me 

I guess the 13 million people who purchased SKyrim are morons to you then?

I actually had no problem with the dialogue wheel but I do feel there needs to be some more options or the phrasing needs to be tweaked.

I also have no problem with the silent proantagonist but then again I enjoy creating my characters because I have the imagination to do that. I also don't like things in a game handed to me.

Modifié par Melca36, 16 mars 2012 - 07:07 .

[Pasquale1234]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd suggest that's a (unspecified) goal. If something has impact*, you notice it. BioWare wants the cinematics to be so common that they meld together in your mind with the gameplay.

And to some extent, I think they've succeeded for me. For example, when the 'camera' in DA swooped over and up while a group of character's walked for the first time, I noticed it. But there are times in the Gallows where the camera switches to an overhead view in order to frame one of the slave statues in the conversation. I never noticed that until I started taking screenshots and studying the composition** of the shots.

* Semantics, I guess. Impact, to me, implies a splashy, obvious reaction. The first chestburster scene in aliens has an impact as I'm highly aware that it's terrifying me. The use of dim light and faded metal for the interior of the spaceship has an unconscious influence on me while I'm watching.

** I don't have a visual art background and suspect I'm misusing the word composition.

There are a few specific types of cinematics that I think fit really well in an RPG:

1)  Set-up/Build-up - Scenes depicting some major event to put the protag in a situation, build emotional context and set the stage for what is to follow.  The Hawkes' escape from Lothering, battle at Ostagar, Landsmeet, or speech given by Anora or Alistair before marching on the darkspawn would be examples of this type.

2)  Non-diegetic exposition - Information given to the player that the protag does not know, e.g., Loghain and Howe scheming.  Cinematics are a great tool for this type of story-telling.

3)  Player Rewards - for things the protag has achieved in-game.  Love scenes, finishing blows in boss battles, receiving accolades from a crowd are examples.

Impact may have been a poor choice of words on my part, but as someone who prefers more a first-person type of role-playing experience, I'd prefer to see the protag in cinematics minimally, if at all.  It is incredibly difficult to find the right balance, because the designers have to struggle with player agency and the fact that not every Hawke would react the same way to a given event - and some players who want to see the protag express more emotion and others, less...

In the end, I suspect that the more cinematic approach might work better for pre-defined characters, such as TW's Geralt than for a protag that can be created by the player.  Hawke seems to be somewhere in-between.

[koshiee]

I liked it for the same reasons that I really disliked Origins. Mainly that it had a more defined protagonist that had a compelling back story that led to a personal story that grew along with the main plot. Also, the story was more nuanced and wasn't a cut and paste of the save the world from some foreboding evil trope.

My only complaint is that the three acts needed to be tied together more tightly. At the end of the game the "main plots" of the first two acts seemed kind of pointless. It would have been better if each act slowly built to the climactic ending while simultaneously building the world and the legend of the main character. If you took the Arishok plot line and the expedition plot line out you could still more or less tell the main story of the game and that's a serious problem.

Modifié par koshiee, 16 mars 2012 - 09:54 .

[jbrand2002uk]

Actually Melca I thoroughly enjoy playing a silent protag in KOTOR 1 and 2 and it still has its place what i was referring to was the level of control while player agency and control is a good thing I'm of the belief that there is a tipping point at which a certain amount of control or player agency becomes excessive the whole point of an RPG is that you are playing a "role"( note that is in the singular ie one person) more specifically Your Character be it the "Warden" or "Hawke" etc ergo your role playing should be confined to that character and that character alone.

Once you start delving into what your companions wear right down to the underwear to me it ceases being a role playing game.For Example in DA2 I'm playing the role(Singular) of Hawke so therefore what Aveline wears or her motivations are is irrelevant because I'm not playing as Aveline I'm playing as Hawke.

While in DAO you can stop and chat to your companions anytime you wish by the time you reach the landsmeet pretty much all of the fresh dialogue is exhausted resulting in your Warden having no new questions to ask and merely backtracking over existing questions you have already asked and have received answers for.

What Sylvius is proposing is full control over even the PC's ambient dialogue which to me borders in to the excessive because once you go down this road where does it end( maybe with Sylvius and others writing to Mr Gaider and telling him the confines on how to write his character).

RPG's like any other genre have Borders as the Gamer its not our place to decide those Borders or to dictate what those borders are to the writers nor is it our place to dictate the level of player agency or the way in which it is implemented.

There is no mandatory requirement that because DAO had X% of player agency that every successive game that follows must have the same % or more of player agency.
RPG's allow you to set the parameters of your character within those borders and which parameters are allowed to be altered isn't up to us its BW's choice and right to make that is what separates RPG's from fan fiction and the level of control Sylvius et al is asking for is the level of control akin to fan fiction.

[Morroian]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd suggest that's a (unspecified) goal. If something has impact*, you notice it. BioWare wants the cinematics to be so common that they meld together in your mind with the gameplay.

And to some extent, I think they've succeeded for me. For example, when the 'camera' in DA swooped over and up while a group of character's walked for the first time, I noticed it. But there are times in the Gallows where the camera switches to an overhead view in order to frame one of the slave statues in the conversation. I never noticed that until I started taking screenshots and studying the composition** of the shots.

I think they've definitely succeeded at that with me. The cinematic graphics and the 'game' graphics meld into 1 in my mind.

[Dragoonlordz]

I personally do not hate it, I just unfortunately never enjoyed it overall.

I can't help that but I am glad for those who did enjoy it.

[Pasquale1234]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Actually Melca I thoroughly enjoy playing a silent protag in KOTOR 1 and 2 and it still has its place what i was referring to was the level of control while player agency and control is a good thing I'm of the belief that there is a tipping point at which a certain amount of control or player agency becomes excessive the whole point of an RPG is that you are playing a "role"

In role-playing, player agency and control are the only thing.

Do you have a mysterious force making you say and do things that are inconsistent with the reality of who you are and what you know, blocking you from doing things that would be natural for you, and dictating how you will react to every situation you encounter?

Hawke does.  In an RPG, that puppeteer should be the player, not the game itself..

Once you start delving into what your companions wear right down to the underwear to me it ceases being a role playing game.For Example in DA2 I'm playing the role(Singular) of Hawke so therefore what Aveline wears or her motivations are is irrelevant because I'm not playing as Aveline I'm playing as Hawke.

You're conflating the protag with the player.

For players who do self-inserts, I guess that is the norm - but many role-players create characters who are not themselves, and draw distinct lines between the character they are playing and themselves.

So no, Hawke does not get to determine what Aveline wears, but the player should be able to.

With the exception of Varric's Bianca, the player equips all of the companions with weapons and accessories.  Not being able to also equip them with armor seems pretty arbitrary and in service of the unique body models used for those all-important iconic looks.

What Sylvius is proposing is full control over even the PC's ambient dialogue which to me borders in to the excessive because once you go down this road where does it end( maybe with Sylvius and others writing to Mr Gaider and telling him the confines on how to write his character).

We're not talking about a novel, play, or movie where the protagonist is completely the invention of the writer(s).

We're talking about RPGs, and many of them allow players to invent a PC within a setting and story backdrop of a game world and determine who that character is and how they will react to the world.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 17 mars 2012 - 05:13 .

[Yrkoon]

jbrand2002uk wrote...


RPG's like any other genre have Borders as the Gamer its not our place to decide those Borders or to dictate what those borders are to the writers nor is it our place to dictate the level of player agency or the way in which it is implemented.

BS.   You're describing a movie here, not an RPG.

First off, these "borders" to player agency should never exist beyond the strictly technical.  That is to say,  in an RPG, if there are any limitations to player freedom  (especially when it comes to  the Protagonist's personality and customization)  then they should only be because of stuff like engine limitations, or in the case of  Games like  The  Witcher,  the already established information contained in the Novels.   And with the  latter, the player should be given a clear heads up regarding their lack of agency  via information  on the game box itself.  

But  if  the Developers decide that the player's protagonist MUST be, say, a talkative, charismatic hero who travels with a party of loonies wearing  clown outfits that can't be removed, and these  design decisions are based on nothing but the whims inside the  developers' heads,  then we have a problem.  These devs are trying to to make a movie, not a game.  They're basically asking us to buy a game so we can "watch it", instead of "play it"


But   lets cut the pseudo-intellectual  nonsense now and tell it like it is.   These "borders" you're describing are nothing more than  Laziness on the part of the writers.  It's extremely difficult  (and time consuming)  to write a good, engrossing narrative with memorable, iconic NPCs, while still giving the player   significant agency.  But it CAN be done.   And it has.   The question is:  Will Bioware ever try to do such a thing ever again?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 17 mars 2012 - 07:13 .

[jbrand2002uk]

I dont see the point in giving players more agency because they'll never be satisfied no matter how much they get they'll just keep saying I want more again and again.

Point being how much you want to kill say Petrice at point X is irrelevant if the writer has decided that Petrice is integral to a scene he/she has written at point Z, its neither our right or privelage to say to mr Gaider " I dont care if you want Petrice in scene Z I want to kill her in scene X so you will rewrite it because refusing to do so denies me player agency".

If you dont like the story well then thats just too bad as its not your story its Mr Gaider's so unless your actually Mr Gaider and have Intellectual property rights your not entitled to write the story but you are entitled to go along for the ride.

Because its Mr Gaider's story if he decides that in Scene X you have 3 choices, its irrelevant if you want 5 choices because the writers decision is final when its his IP so if he says your only getting 3 choices in scene X then 3 choices is all your getting.

[Yrkoon]

Player agency encompasses a hell of a lot more than just plot choices.

Not going to  be goaded into debating  your  flimsy straw man, no. 


Edit:  But I will respond to this, because it amuses me to do so:

jbrand2002uk wrote...

I dont see the point in giving players more agency because they'll never be satisfied no matter how much they get they'll just keep saying I want more again and again.

Therefore, lets  give the player less agency so  they won't complain as much?    Yeah, that makes sense.  Terrific argument.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 17 mars 2012 - 08:30 .

[TEWR]

I tend to view player agency as the equivalent of free will for an RPG. Without it, then for me the protagonist is little more then a puppet dancing to the tune of the creators.

If you give the players less, you're basically telling them to roleplay a soulless puppet. Which is kinda... silly. Sure, Bioware wants to tell a story and all that. That's fine. But there does need to be player agency in the game.

We're always going to be limited in what we do for certain situations. But we shouldn't be limited to nigh non-existent levels. Player agency is crucial to a role-playing game. Hell, it's practically the definition of role-playing! In those instances where the plot overrides what a player may want to do, then you have to give credible reasons why a course of action is not on the menu. Not just say "He/She is important because we say so. Deal with it."

That's basically what happened with Petrice.

And that's just regarding the plot choices. As Yrkoon said -- and I'm sure others as well -- player agency involves more then choices in the narrative.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 17 mars 2012 - 08:51 .

[DarkAmaranth1966]

Exactly, if the choices the player makes do not affect the story, then why even offer choices. Just let the pc be a puppet where the only choice is to do a quest or not do it and, what order to do the quests in.

Well and good for an antiquated MMO that wants to focus on socializing and party warfare but, horrible for a single player RPG.

[Realmzmaster]

Balance is the key word between player agency and story. Back in the day, there were cRPGs that allow a great deal of player agency to the point where players were allowed to sell, give away or destroy quest items.
Since inventories turn over in those games, the quest items would be gone. If dropped eventually quest item disappeared. Even then you had to remember where you dropped it. If it got destroyed well you reloaded. Some cRPGS even had thieves steal from your inventory. Guess what they stole among other things.

Clues were given that you may wish to hold on to those items. The clues were in the form of riddles, markings on the items, use of code wheels etc. The quest did not show up in your log until you actually received it, which meant you may have gotten rid of the item(I actually like this system and I think Sylvius the Mad approved of this method (Correct me if I am wrong Sylvius).

Many gamers complained about that because the quest could not be completed. So designers marked the items as quest items which meant unable to be sold, destroyed or given away (you could still drop them, sometimes) unless to end the quest.

On the opposite end you have situations like Petrice where gamers want more player agency. The task of the designer is to find the balance that pleases most of the audience.

Edited for formatting

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 17 mars 2012 - 09:06 .

[Yrkoon]

There's also the matter of non story-related player agency. I can  be convinced to live with, and even enjoy, a   *good*  story that gives me   only superficial choices on how to proceed with it. But I draw the line when a game imposes  hamfisted customization/career decisions upon my character.

For example:

-You're a warrior, but we're not going to allow you to dual-wield. Or use any ranged weapons.

-You can be whatever you want... but you can't be a dwarf. Or an elf. oh, and  we get to choose your last name. And  we've decided   on his voiceset as well. And we reserve the right to take control of your character at any time and make him say stuff we want him to say. But if it's any consolation, you're totally free to watch us play your character for you during those times! That's a decent compromise, isn't it?

- In keeping with the spirit of party-based RPGs, here's the list of companions your character may travel with. They belong to us though, not you, so we reserve the  right to decide what they wear, when you can talk to them, and when you may or may not use them.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 17 mars 2012 - 10:03 .

[TEWR]

oh, and we get to choose your last name

Not to detract from your point -- some of it I agree with and some of it I disagree with -- but how is this any different from Origins? Your last name was set for all Wardens -- and people would even refer to you by your last name for a few -- but you could choose your first name.

DAII did the same thing. Set last name, first name to be chosen by the player.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 17 mars 2012 - 10:03 .

[Yrkoon]

It's not any different. It's a flaw.

[TEWR]

Ah okay. So you didn't like that Origins did it either then, correct?

[DarkAmaranth1966]

Okay single player RPG, so yes the computer needs to control the companions (I hated that one scene when I was forced to play Varric in combat).

Last I checked everyone who might possibly buy this game was human (otherkin excepted but, still human as far as this forum is concerned) so the pc being human is fine.

Sure Let's make Warriors arches and rogues, might as well give them spells to cast too. Why have classes at all, just let the pc have any skills they want. No for me that works but some newer players would not know what works best together and, some don't want to have to get into advanced stat building - some prefer it simple, pick a class and dump the points in one or two places and forget about it. So if you did it otherwise, it should be an OPTION, not mandatory.

The best, IMO, would be to have free socialization at set locations only, locations you could leave any time you liked but, could socialize as long as you wanted to stay there. Once out of the safe social zones, you are subject to combat at any time.

[Yrkoon]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Ah okay. So you didn't like that Origins did it either then, correct?

Correct.  There's quite a few things in the player agency department that I didn't like in Origins.

Not being able to disassociate myself from Alistair   (like you could with  almost  every other character) was another.

[Yrkoon]

DarkAmaranth1966 wrote...

Last I checked everyone who might possibly buy this game was human (otherkin excepted but, still human as far as this forum is concerned) so the pc being human is fine.

What a gamer is in real life has little to no bearing at all on what they may  wish to play in a video game.  I'm also fine with  playing a Human, in part because I am one.  I can 'relate', etc.   But what  I'm not fine with is the fact that I'm  *stuck*  playing a human.  This blatantly obvious  lack of player agency typically rears its ugly head on the second playthrough, or on those days when I wish to be  an Elf.  Or an Orc.

Sure Let's make Warriors arches and rogues, might as well give them spells to cast too.

Is anyone here arguing this?  Nope.  MY example simply talked about specific weapon styles.  Warriors should  be  able to use  any martial weapon.  Period.  The fact that Bioware  arbitrarily decided that only rogues can use bows in DA2  (and worse, only  Dwarven Rogues named Varric can use Crossbows)  goes even beyond stripping the player of agency.  It flat out conflicts with  their *own*  game world's lore.

Why have classes at all, just let the pc have any skills they want.

Not to change the subject, but Skyrim does that masterfully, actually.   But I certainly wouldn't ask for such a thing from Dragon Age.  I'd just ask that they not 'fix' what wasn't broken in the first place.  The class system they had in Origins worked, and it worked well.  There wasn't, and still isn't, a rational reason given for the utterly retarded stripping of such basic customization choices for the sequel..

The best, IMO, would be to have free socialization at set locations only, locations you could leave any time you liked but, could socialize as long as you wanted to stay there. Once out of the safe social zones, you are subject to combat at any time.

Indeed.  Because that's how it is naturally.  When I go out with my buddies on friday night we ususually decide that no talking is allowed until we reach our  set destination.    I mean, I'd hate to take my mind off the road and have a fatal accident!   Right?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 17 mars 2012 - 11:06 .

[TEWR]

Yrkoon wrote...


Correct.  There's quite a few things in the player agency department that I didn't like in Origins.

Not being able to disassociate myself from Alistair   (like you could with  almost  every other character) was another.

Hmm... I'm not sure the last name thing is a valid issue to have with the games. But that's just my thoughts on the matter so pay them no heed, though it has given me an idea for the fantasy RPG video game series I've been planning out myself.

Regarding Alistair, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Could you elaborate further?

DarkAmaranth1966 wrote...

Okay single player RPG, so yes the computer needs to control the companions (I hated that one scene when I was forced to play Varric in combat).

Really? I loved that moment actually. It made sense for the narrator to do something like that, even if the rest of the game failed to use the idea of "the narrator narrating a story" effectively IMO -- compounded by how you don't see too many moments of said narrator being unreliable.

Last I checked everyone who might possibly buy this game was human (otherkin excepted but, still human as far as this forum is concerned) so the pc being human is fine.

Irrelevant. What a person is in real life has no bearing on what they want to play in the game.

Personally, I was fine with DAII using only a human protagonist since the series is about Thedas. I did expect the game's story though to allow for enough variance that the human protagonist wouldn't be a bad thing though.

That said, I do want to play as a Dwarf again.

Sure Let's make Warriors arches and rogues, might as well give them spells to cast too. Why have classes at all, just let the pc have any skills they want.

Personally speaking, I would at least want each class to be able to use the weapon. 

But, I do think Warriors should have access to all the basic weapon skill trees, save for magic. Archery, 2H, S&S, and DW. They're warriors. It makes sense for them to be versatile and able to master any of those forms.

Now, perhaps a Warrior would need to be more dexterous then a Rogue for him to be able to access a DW/Archery ability. Maybe where a Rogue would only need 18 Dexterity, a Warrior would need 20.

But at the very least, each class should be able to use any weapon they so desire -- even if they can't use the skill trees associated with those weapons -- and use the basic animations for those weapons. So a Warrior would use the Archery animations that Sebastian used even if he didn't have any talents that went along with such a thing.

Mages could -- upon becoming an Arcane Warrior, should that return -- be allowed to pick one Weapon tree and from that point on could invest points in both Arcane Warrior specific magic and/or talents from whatever weapon tree was picked.

Now regarding talking to companions, I'd be fine with talking to them anytime in their companion hubs -- or at camp, if that returns -- if we weren't allowed to talk to them anywhere.

Or maybe, we could have certain dialogue options open up in specific areas outside of their hubs -- coupled alongside the talking to them anytime in their hubs bit -- where even if we can't ask them about "Thing 1" which is only allowed in their hubs, we could ask them about "Thing 2" that might be related to the area, or the person's background, etc.

Sort of like a combination of both types. You can talk to them anytime you want in their hubs, but sometimes you might be able to initiate dialogue with a companion outside of their hubs and ask them something you wouldn't otherwise be able to outside of that area.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 17 mars 2012 - 11:01 .