833 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

The ability to undo dialogue by hitting escape during the conversation is one I approve of.

My cat loves me and will attempt to lay across my keyboard, headbutt my hands, and jump on my shoulder several times a night.

[Demx]

I dislike the idea of using auto-dialogue. The party banter that was presented in the series so far is about as far as I'm willing to go. It's not so intrusive like what I've seen in ME3.

As for the paraphrasing parts; why can't we get the exact text to appear after we have the cursor on that particular piece of dialogue for a while? Sure Hawke added extra dialogue while in the middle of the conversation, but the I think the immediate response to NPCs would be enough for people.

[Xewaka]

Maria Caliban wrote...
The ability to undo dialogue by hitting escape during the conversation is one I approve of.

While not the perfect solution (it'd probably make the game unbearably repetitive the nth time a conversation has to be redone due to the astounding lack of clarity of the paraphrases) it is certainly better than what we have now (that is, nothing).

Maria Caliban wrote...
My cat loves me and will attempt to lay across my keyboard, headbutt my hands, and jump on my shoulder several times a night.

Rough love.

Modifié par Xewaka, 24 mars 2012 - 10:39 .

[PinkShoes]

The paraphrasing was so damn annoying, also they would say things we didn't choose i didn't like it. It didn't bring me into the story more just took me more out of it because i kept thinking "This isn't my character" I think one of the problems with Bioware is they say "we feel this is the best direction" or something along those lines too much. Like the voice. There has been a poll and people are spilt some like some don't so why not give people the OPTION to be silent? Why not? seriously i don't get why we don't get an option to be silent and the only excuse bioware has given us is because its the direction they feel is the best. Well i want the option to be silent and have more voices. To be frank its really not about them is it, its about the fans the people they are making this game for and things like a voice they are not listening to.

[Pasquale1234]

PinkShoes wrote...

To be frank its really not about them is it, its about the fans the people they are making this game for and things like a voice they are not listening to.

There's the rub.  As I see it, they can continue in the direction set by this 180° spin and hope to hit their stride with the target audience or turn it back around to recapture the disenfranchised, alienated Origins fans - many of whom bought DA2 but will not be buying "The Next Thing" unless it provides more of the gaming experience we desire.  It will be interesting to see how things shake out over the next weeks and months.

[Wulfram]

Implementing a silent protagonist properly requires more than just allowing the playing to switch off the VO.

[hoorayforicecream]

Joy Divison wrote...

But they were thinking of being able to save Hawke's mother and people were still reloading bc/ they thought they could and wanted the perfect ending...that's why they scrapped it, right?

They scrapped it because they couldn't come up with a scenario that could suitably work within the feelings they wished to convey with the story, not because people would keep reloading. The writers didn't want a happy ending to that scenario - they wanted a tragic one. Saving Leandra was supposed to have a huge cost associated with it (such as permanently sacrificing your love interest), but they couldn't adequately translate that needed cost into something that worked within the constraints of the game (What if your love interest is plot-critical? What if you don't *have* a love interest? etc.). Thus, it never went beyond the planning phase due to the logistics involved.

Basically, it's the other way around... The designers wanted the players to feel bad about it, and knew that they would reload a bunch of times as a result. Not that the reloading made it unviable to have an alternative. 

[AkiKishi]

Wulfram wrote...

Implementing a silent protagonist properly requires more than just allowing the playing to switch off the VO.

It requires being generic and non expressive,which is why the two types can't really co-exist. If it's going to be voiced then I want something with the character of Adam Jensen.

[Pasquale1234]

Wulfram wrote...

Implementing a silent protagonist properly requires more than just allowing the playing to switch off the VO.

Properly is the operative word here.

Even so, if they were to write the dialogue with that feature in mind, it could provide a satisfactory gaming experience for those of us who want more control over the PC.  OTOH, some of the things we're requesting - display of full dialogue text, no or minimal autodialogue, etc. - may take away from the full cinematic feel and the enjoyment of those who... well, enjoy that sort of thing.  They certainly have a lot to think about in deciding where they're going to go with this.

[upsettingshorts]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

To be frank its really not about them is it, its about the fans the people they are making this game for and things like a voice they are not listening to.

There's the rub.  As I see it, they can continue in the direction set by this 180° spin and hope to hit their stride with the target audience or turn it back around to recapture the disenfranchised, alienated Origins fans - many of whom bought DA2 but will not be buying "The Next Thing" unless it provides more of the gaming experience we desire.  It will be interesting to see how things shake out over the next weeks and months.

This old fans/new fans dichotomy needs to die, it's a transparent ploy to undermine those with different preferences by othering them into a fictional out-group that can be easily and casually dismissed.

There are old fans who like the VO, there are new fans who hate VO.
There are new fans that prefer full text, there are old fans that think it's stale.

It is a 3rd person vs. 1st person gamer dichotomy.  To a 3rd person gamer there is not and never has been a "
180° spin," and features like the voiceover are natural if not obvious evolutions.  To a 1st person gamer they are, as you imply, a surprising change in direction that is a direct obstacle to enjoyment.  The playstyles are no longer compatible as they were in an era when full voiceovers and cinematics were not possible given technological limitations.  Now that they are, there is a clear dividing line between features that support one playstyle to the detriment of the other. 

BioWare has - pretty obviously - chosen third person.  So while they - again, pretty obviously, you don't even need to read between the lines - are willing if not eager to solicit feedback on how best to implement that style, they will not be actively supporting that 1st person playstyle with things like disabled VO or full text previews.  What does that mean? It means that, by pursuing the approach they've chosen, they are not only aware that the changes will cross a line for some people - and while I'm sure they appreciated your business previously - they're not going to burden their development and writing processes by trying to please anyone with half measures that will barely be tolerated by the very players whose hangups they are meant to assuage.  

It would be foolish to assume that BioWare isn't aware of this, or be clueless as to the nature of the specific objections presented to them in this thread and many many others, and narcissistic to judge their decision not to kowtow to such complaints as the result of willful ignorance.  They have a right to disagree.

Would I, being in such a player's shoes, be disappointed by this conclusion?  Sure.  No-one likes to see a developer whose games they admired move on in a way they can no longer appreciate, it's happened to me with other companies and genres.  But I was never entitled to more of the same in perpetuity from the same people, and neither is anyone else. 

So by all means, voice your objections, you certainly don't need my permission to do so - but there's a point at which it might be wiser to cut one's losses and either save yourself the effort, or refocus it by accepting the premise BioWare is offering in these threads.  I am confident in asserting that demands to refocus future BioWare games on a 1st person experience are futile for the forseeable future.

Previous posts on the subject quoted below for additional clarification on 3rd v. 1st person:

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Many previous Bioware games were in my opinion implicitly third person narratives. But they didn't go so far as to demand that everyone have this view. Adding a voiceover and a paraphrase system makes the games explicitly third person. So if you always played Bioware games as a third person narrative, this doesn't bother you and is possibly seen as an improvement. If you always played Bioware games as a first person narrative, this is a radical departure.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Yup, I've been around since BG1, but since I've always played them as third person games the introduction of a VA and paraphrase don't seem like a big deal to me and something of a natural step forward.  In fact, if I had never started posting on or reading the BSN, it wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone thought otherwise. The fact that many simply assume that such changes could only possibly appeal to some "new" audience implies that those who treated such games as a first person narrative may not have realized that there has always been another way to approach Bioware games either.  That isn't to dismiss that playstyle, far from it, only that there have always been two valid ways to play and that for one of them the introduction of a VA/paraphrase/cinematics isn't as big a change as it would be to the other one.

Fact is Bioware's recent offerings are polarizing because they basically made a choice. That choice was to make the third person experience explicit. This is usually associated with the "cinematic" buzzword. That's why you get some people who really love it (third person) and some people who really hate it (first person) and not a lot of middle ground - which is what polarizing means - because Bioware has effectively chosen a playstyle to endorse with their feature changes after implicitly supporting both.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2012 - 05:03 .

[Meris]

As much as I found your post interesting I don't understand how roleplaying can be a third person experience, no matter how much you choose to interpret it as such. Would you help me sort this out be describing your rationale while interacting with story? Perhaps one act of decision making (preferably on DA:O because that's the game I played past the first half).

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 05:03 .

[ademska]

third-person means interacting with a story through the eyes of its principle character, be they a customized experience (like dragon age) or a linear narrative (like final fantasy). in bioware's case, you are interpreting events and making decisions based on what the character you are playing would do.

edit: to clarify, it also means allowing the narrative itself to determine who and how the protagonist character is.

Modifié par ademska, 24 mars 2012 - 05:25 .

[upsettingshorts]

Disclaimer:  While I would expect many third person gamers are similar in their approach, I can only accurately speak for myself.

Meris wrote...

As much as I found your post interesting I don't understand how roleplaying can be a third person experience, no matter how much you choose to interpret it as such. Would you help me sort this out be describing your rationale while interacting with story? Perhaps one act of decision making (preferably on DA:O because that's the game I played past the first half).

In it's most basic sense, it's the difference between total control over the protagonist - something a 1st person gamer quite clearly desires - and a cooperative effort with what the game actively supports and reacts to.  

A 3rd person gamer does not so much look at BioWare games as being good replicators of the PnP experience - I'd go so far personally as to say they can never be good at this - as they are the greatest realization of the concept of the choose-your-own adventure book.  Since all options and outcomes are pre-written, the 3rd person gamer accepts authoral intent and works within it.  

As a result, character concepts must necessarily start out vague, especially for the first playthrough where knowledge of available options is lacking.  Through playing the game, the character becomes who they are.  I acknowledge this isn't the same as building a complete character and playing them through the game, but video games have never accomodated that approach to my satisfaction.  It certainly has for others, but they're not me.  I need a dynamic human dungeon master to handle the kind of reactivity I would demand to enjoy a completely original character with effectively unlimited choice and effectively unlimited consequences.

There are other differences, but the gist is that I don't mind taking my hands off of my character because I don't feel that video games are equipped to respond to precise control in the first place.  I don't acknowledge the additional options that many first person gamers say features like the unvoiced protagonist grants their imagination, because I don't experience the reactivity I desire from picturing the scene meaning something I don't believe it's creators intended it to.  So if BioWare acknowledges that lack of control and builds upon it by creating a more enjoyable experience with features like voiceovers, digital acting, different perspectives, etc - far from having any problem with that, I'm going to be all for it.

I'm all for imaginative character building and truly in-depth roleplaying, I just don't think these games are or ever have been good at it, nor do I think they ought to be.  When I play a BioWare game - any of them - I'm not so much roleplaying as rolepicking.

This is not coming from a "new" fan, either.  It was, I imagine, as much a shock for me to discover the 1st person playstyle existed as the reverse was for those upset with the changes.  I don't think it occurred to us that there was any other way to do it apart from our own, and until the introduction of explicit 3rd person features like player VO, there was very little impetus to explore such things anyway.  That's why Dragon Age 2 is polarizing, it highlighted a wedge issue many fans - many of them "old fans" - didn't realize existed.

ademska wrote...

third-person means interacting with a story through the eyes of its principle character, be they a customized experience (like dragon age) or a linear narrative (like final fantasy). in bioware's case, you are interpreting events and making decisions based on what the character you are playing would do.

edit: to clarify, it also means allowing the narrative itself to determine who and how the protagonist characteris.

The bolded part is the approach to which I am referring.  There is probably a better way to express the distinction than "1st vs. 3rd person" because the former paragraph is always true of any player not using their character as an avatar which wouldn't really be roleplaying.

I'm open to terminology suggestions.   

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2012 - 05:33 .

[Meris]

But according to your logic I'm a first person player, yet I believe CRPG roleplaying is a matter of co-authorship. BioWare games tell you the same story but with the Silent Protagonist you can choose your point of view with much more liberty than with a Voiced one.

Yes, there are constraints for both but the writing for each kind of character, as per David Gaider, is enormously different: a more defined protagonist will follow a predefined drive (or handful of drives) behind his motives for every choice. A less defined one will only leave the choice itself evident while the whys and hows are left for the player to visualize.

I disagree, however, when you call your playstyle a matter of 3rd person perspective. To say so would make the player unqualified to make any choice within the game's story. You're not acting as the character would. Both of us play the game from similar perspectives.

I put forward that advocates of voice acting just put more value on the graphical experience of the game. One side favor BioWare's choice for a more cinematic experience while the other would rather the literary one.

[upsettingshorts]

Meris wrote...

But according to your logic I'm a first person player, yet I believe CRPG roleplaying is a matter of co-authorship. BioWare games tell you the same story but with the Silent Protagonist you can choose your point of view with much more liberty than with a Voiced one.

My distinction is not absolute, though I portray it as one for simplicity's sake.  

I don't see how a voiced protagonist limits a point of view because of reactivity.  Even if, as some posters do, we ignore or disregard authoral intent.   I don't, and assert that the written line and tone were always present in each selection, as were the NPC reactions to each choice.  The only difference to me is the silent protagonist is a voiceless, static automaton that doesn't react to my choices and I'm left to pretend.

If I pick an angry option I want to see the character being angry, and I want to see that anger effect the target of it, or it doesn't feel like a valid choice.  

Doing what you suggest would require me to invent both the choice and the consequence, which seems like a clumsy and unnatural way to play.

Meris wrote...

I disagree, however, when you call your playstyle a matter of 3rd person perspective. To say so would make the player unqualified to make any choice within the game's story. You're not acting as the character would. Both of us play the game from similar perspectives.

I said I was open to suggestions for terminology. 

I'm also not sure what you're trying to say with regards to qualifications or acting within character.  That doesn't make sense to me.  My assertion is that the characters are necessarily simpler - if only perhaps to begin with - not that their motives don't exist.  

Meris wrote... 

I put forward that advocates of voice acting just put more value on the graphical experience of the game. One side favor BioWare's choice for a more cinematic experience while the other would rather the literary one.

Some might. 

But I don't think there's as big of a difference between a "cinematic" experience and a "literary" one as you do, and the difference that exists I don't find particularly relevant to the subject of player agency which is the core of discussions like, well, auto-dialog and VO.

That's why I frame the distinction as being between a PnP-like experience, and a choose-your-own adventure one.  The difference between those is agency and freedom of choice.

You're essentially arguing that cinematics are the cause (of a move towards a reduction in player agency).  I'm aruging cinematics are the effect (of recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the medium).

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2012 - 05:55 .

[Meris]

That's why each side of this argument can only agree to disagree. If you favour one method of protagonist presentation, odds are you don't see value on the other, even less value on a advocate's arguments. I do realize you said this earlier though*

What I found odd about your post is that I always saw this as a issue of presentation and not perspective... roleplaying itself has always been a matter of acting as another would so first person is imperative. But I do see what you mean now because I just remember that the act of choosing a dialogue option was analagous to the act of speaking or, well, acting itself while watching Hawke do stuff simply doesn't appeal to me.

In the end, I believe it may be a mixture of both. Presentation and perspective.

However, to say that BioWare ditching my half of the playerbase was the reason for my disappointment isn't even half of it, really. I can see value on Dragon Age II's concepts (less so with the implementation, but that's another thing) but Dragon Age was the BioWare franchise that cattered to my gaming niche. As much as you say that Baldur's Gate unnoficially supported both '3rd person' and '1st person' gamers you're the first out of tens of Baldur's Gate players I've talked to that actually prefers the voice - in short, Dragon Age II was a betrayal of Origin's premise of being a spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate as far as we are concerned.

My experience with Dragon Age II could have been better, but every time Hawke talked the whole thing just got sour on principle. I wish BioWare's not-very-innovative innovations were kept to other IPs. *This also makes the 'lies' about DA3 being a compromise between Origins and II even more... disheartening.

Modifié par Meris, 24 mars 2012 - 05:54 .

[Vixy]

Yes please. Autodialogue was terrible in ME3 and it will be terrible of you do it in DA3.

[upsettingshorts]

Meris wrote...

That's why each side of this argument can only agree to disagree. If you favour one method of protagonist presentation, odds are you don't see value on the other, even less value on a advocate's arguments. I do realize you said this earlier though*

Indeed.  I do not actually believe the playstyles are compatible anymore.

Meris wrote... 

 I can see value on Dragon Age II's concepts (less so with the implementation, but that's another thing) but Dragon Age was the BioWare franchise that cattered to my gaming niche. As much as you say that Baldur's Gate unnoficially supported both '3rd person' and '1st person' gamers you're the first out of tens of Baldur's Gate players I've talked to that actually prefers the voice - in short, Dragon Age II was a betrayal of Origin's premise of being a spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate as far as we are concerned.

Sure.  But I don't see the need to take it as personally as some do.  Categorizing this as a betrayal is a strong term that I think makes a couple assumptions that don't stand up to scrutiny:  The promise in question has multiple interpretations.  For example, it's perfectly reasonable - considering how surprised many of us were to discover the others existed - to believe that when BioWare promised that Dragon Age would be the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate they thought they were saying something different than you and many others thought they were. 

They make games.  We either buy/enjoy them, or we don't.  We're certainly free to express why, one way or the other, but in the end they're just people making games and we're people consuming them.  It's nothing personal, and when it becomes such it starts to get, well... nasty.

Meris wrote. 
My experience with Dragon Age II could have been better, but every time Hawke talked the whole thing just got sour on principle. I wish BioWare's not-very-innovative innovations were kept to other IPs. *This also makes the 'lies' about DA3 being a compromise between Origins and II even more... disheartening.

They're only "not innovative" because you don't appreciate them.  I don't mean that in a derogatory way, that you're somehow deficient for not appreciating them, but if you're reading along and accept the basic premise I'm running with here they were never going to appeal to you.  They don't offer you anything you value and they come at a cost you're unwilling to pay.  They're certainly innovative to me, innovative enough that I couldn't endorse going back to a setup that catered - unofficially or unintentionally - to both approaches anymore.  So from my point of view, they offer me tremendous value at a cost I find negligible or nonexistent.  

That's the other half of why DA2 is polarizing.  3rd person gamers don't want to go back.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2012 - 06:18 .

[Joy Divison]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

But they were thinking of being able to save Hawke's mother and people were still reloading bc/ they thought they could and wanted the perfect ending...that's why they scrapped it, right?

They scrapped it because they couldn't come up with a scenario that could suitably work within the feelings they wished to convey with the story, not because people would keep reloading. The writers didn't want a happy ending to that scenario - they wanted a tragic one. Saving Leandra was supposed to have a huge cost associated with it (such as permanently sacrificing your love interest), but they couldn't adequately translate that needed cost into something that worked within the constraints of the game (What if your love interest is plot-critical? What if you don't *have* a love interest? etc.). Thus, it never went beyond the planning phase due to the logistics involved.

Basically, it's the other way around... The designers wanted the players to feel bad about it, and knew that they would reload a bunch of times as a result. Not that the reloading made it unviable to have an alternative. 

OK, thanks.

I do understand that an "undo" button is personal preference and has its advantages, I am just of the opinion that anything simulating a cheat code is best made at least a minor inconvenience.

[Meris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sure.  But I don't see the need to take it as personally as some do.  Caterogizing this as a betrayal is a strong term that I think makes a couple assumptions that don't stand up to scrutiny:  The promise in question has multiple interpretations.  For example, it's perfectly reasonable - considering how surprised many of us were to discover the others existed - to believe that when BioWare promised that Dragon Age would be the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate they thought they were saying something different than you and many others thought they were.

Sincerely I don't think so. Every game that claims to stand to the spirit of that era always makes a point of reminding us that the protagonist is silent, among other things. BioWare themselves told us that about Origins a long time ago.

Mr.shorts wrote...

They're only "not innovative" because you don't appreciate them.

I meant that they are only innovative if you analyze the series alone, but BioWare's PR almost make it a point of reminding us that they were revolutionizing the genre.

I already understand I won't like these concepts in a Dragon Age game, though I like them on other IPs, but I figured I might as well as voice my concerns until a Dragon Age game that I don't consider to be a Dragon Age game becomes universally acclaimed. Until then, I still have some (albeit minor) hope that I'll actually want to buy another BioWare game.

Though I confess that the Wastelands 2 kickstarter and Baldur's Gate EE made me a little bit more bolder about my gaming niche's future.

[hoorayforicecream]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

They're only "not innovative" because you don't appreciate them.  I don't mean that in a derogatory way, that you're somehow deficient for not appreciating them, but if you're reading along and accept the basic premise I'm running with here they were never going to appeal to you.  They don't offer you anything you value and they come at a cost you're unwilling to pay.  They're certainly innovative to me, innovative enough that I couldn't endorse going back to a setup that catered - unofficially or unintentionally - to both approaches anymore.  So from my point of view, they offer me tremendous value at a cost I find negligible or nonexistent.  

That's the other half of why DA2 is polarizing.  3rd person gamers don't want to go back.  

I wanted to chime in about this. When I heard my Hawke bantering with her teammates in MotA, I was floored. My character, with the personality *I* chose, was interacting with her party members in a way that I thought made sense, and it was awesome. I loved it, because I felt that it showed that she was a more real character, that the other companions were actually reacting to her like a person, rather than simply me having to pretend they did. And that made me very happy. To me, if the game doesn't react to something I do, then it probably didn't happen in the first place.

I also realize that many people here probably felt supreme amounts of horror at this revelation. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it put a huge smile on my face.

[AkiKishi]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

They're only "not innovative" because you don't appreciate them.  I don't mean that in a derogatory way, that you're somehow deficient for not appreciating them, but if you're reading along and accept the basic premise I'm running with here they were never going to appeal to you.  They don't offer you anything you value and they come at a cost you're unwilling to pay.  They're certainly innovative to me, innovative enough that I couldn't endorse going back to a setup that catered - unofficially or unintentionally - to both approaches anymore.  So from my point of view, they offer me tremendous value at a cost I find negligible or nonexistent.  

That's the other half of why DA2 is polarizing.  3rd person gamers don't want to go back.  

I wanted to chime in about this. When I heard my Hawke bantering with her teammates in MotA, I was floored. My character, with the personality *I* chose, was interacting with her party members in a way that I thought made sense, and it was awesome. I loved it, because I felt that it showed that she was a more real character, that the other companions were actually reacting to her like a person, rather than simply me having to pretend they did. And that made me very happy. To me, if the game doesn't react to something I do, then it probably didn't happen in the first place.

I also realize that many people here probably felt supreme amounts of horror at this revelation. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it put a huge smile on my face.

Actually I'm more than happy to go back. I'm not happy about the character being genericised in an effort to allow first person roleplaying though. If that ship has sailed then they need to make the most of the character and cinematics with or without player agency. Let me choose how I want to play the game, let the character take care of the rest.

[Meris]

In all sincerity, I can only see three ways for autodialogue to make sense with your character.

A)You're contempt with playing a character that is more BioWare's than yours.

B)You weren't very creative with your character to begin with.

C)A miracle happened and you managed to make a character that is exactly the same as BioWare's Hawke.

[upsettingshorts]

Meris wrote...

Sincerely I don't think so. Every game that claims to stand to the spirit of that era always makes a point of reminding us that the protagonist is silent, among other things. BioWare themselves told us that about Origins a long time ago.

Reminding you.

When I heard that Dragon Age would be the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, all I thought was, "So it's going to be a party-based fantasy game with magic and swords but an original IP?  Okay."  

Drawing a direct distinction to it being an explicit promise - in of itself - to retain the silent protagonist seems like an ex post facto conclusion.  That's why I say calling such changes a betrayal and citing that promise is based on an assumption, a potentially reasonable one but an assumption nonetheless.

There's a quote by the Doctors occasionally cited around this point in similar arguments that describes what you're getting at more explicitly, that Mass Effect and Dragon Age were pursuing different paths.  But it seemed difficult to reconcile with BioWare's actual decisions ever since Baldur's Gate II so I've personally filed it under marketing-speak, but that's an assumption I've made, too.

We all do it, and short of being a fly on the wall in their Edmonton office while such meetings are going down - we can't actually know for sure.  That's why I try to focus on the content of the games themselves, rather than put much stock in marketing.  Especially BioWare marketing, but that's a subject for a different thread.

BobSmith101 wrote...

Actually I'm more than happy to go back. I'm not happy about the character being genericised in an effort to allow first person roleplaying though. If that ship has sailed then they need to make the most of the character and cinematics with or without player agency. Let me choose how I want to play the game, let the character take care of the rest.

I'm not following your argument.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2012 - 06:56 .

[upsettingshorts]

Meris wrote...

In all sincerity, I can only see three ways for autodialogue to make sense with your character.

A)You're contempt with playing a character that is more BioWare's than yours.

B)You weren't very creative with your character to begin with.

C)A miracle happened and you managed to make a character that is exactly the same as BioWare's Hawke.

In all sincerity, when you make posts like this a gamer like me thinks:

To A, we'd disagree with your premise that BioWare has ever given us any other choice than to play a character that is at least as much theirs as ours.  To us, you take options that don't exist and experience feedback that doesn't exist. 

To B, provided we ignore any number of implications of your judgment, we'd say that any additional creativity on your or our part isn't supported by or reacted to by the game so it's irrelevant to our experience.

To C, we'd say that if you think this is hard to accomplish you're doing it wrong.  We're used to this happening.  Every Hawke we could possibly dream up is also BioWare's Hawke because to us we have no choice, and have never had any choice, but to play from one of the protagonists BioWare has already designed.  

See what I mean when I say they're fundamentally incompatible approaches?  They are.  It makes no sense for you to try and engage us on your terms or vice versa.    

You think ownership can only come from creation.  I think ownership can come from guidance.  If I didn't, I would have never enjoyed a single BioWare game.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2012 - 07:04 .