942 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Does he?  Outside of JRPGs, I have never seen that happen with an unvoiced protagonist.

You're telling me that there is no instance in an 8bit western developed game where a character makes a decision without prompting?

I have never played a so-called RPG on a console, so I can't speak to those, but those classic C=64 and PC games from the '80s never did that, no.

That's my standard.  History has shown that it can be met.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

It seems this is the crux of your argument. I contend that immersion and flow are essential elements of making a good game, which I believe supercede the requirements for it to be 'role playing' at all.

You're skipping a step.  The things I'm complaining about that break roleplaying do so by breaking immersion.

You cannot have roleplaying without having immersion, and you cannot have immersion without allowing roleplaying.

How do you propose a game could immerse the player without granting the player access to the PC's mind?  How can the player be immersed in his character if he doesn't know his character?

You're arguing that any game being made should try to conform to some sort of platonic ideal for "role playing", simply because it is stated to be so by genre. If they simply called it a cinematic fantasy epic with role-playing elements, your reasoning would no longer be valid.

I would likely dispute the labelling of roleplaying elements, but yes, if they stopped claiming their games offered roleplaying then I would stop demanding roleplaying.

It is possible for people to value elements like cinematography, immersion, flow and pacing alongside player agency.

Immersion and player agency are inseparable.  And while I'll agree that people can value cinematography, cinematography breaks immersion and roleplaying.

I contend that these are all more valuable to making a good cinematic fantasy epic with role-playing elements than rigidly adhering to one man's interpretation of a platonic ideal.

I go where the logic leads me.  I go nowhere else.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 mars 2012 - 06:28 .

[Thor Rand Al]

CarlSpackler wrote...

Just to be clear many of the devs said that the absense of a voiced prot for DAO allowed for more content.  I understand the argument you're making in terms of being more drawn to the vp which is fine, that's personal preference.  But the devs explained that by having the prot be silent it did allow for quite a bit more content as the amount of recording time for the prot is extensive as he/she will by far have more dialogue than any other character in the game.  Not to mention it require two voice actos if you allow gender selection.  A voiced prot is an expense added to the game.  If I understand you correctly you would say regardless you enjoy the vp better than the sp and if the reverse were true I'd still prefer the sp.  I wouldn't want to trade quality for quantity, bottom line though is the sp allows for more content.

Ok, I'm trying to see what you mean and maybe it's because I couldn't get "attached" attached to my Warden and the story as I did with Hawke and theirs but I don't see what was missing between the 2.  I felt more was added.  But this is just my feelings and opinion. 
Yes DA2 didn't have as long as gameplay as Origins, n I've said this before, there are plot holes and yes the reusable areas where there but that's because it didn't have enough time before it was packaged and shipped, so ok right there having a voiced PC took away from the actual content being put into the game.  Basically what you're sayin is if they didn't have to worry about a voiced actor then they could've focused more on the content of the game, am I close?  If that's the case wouldn't that mean it needed more time before it got packaged and shipped?


Edit: I see DA2 as a sample, (not even the right word) more like a testing ground of what can make for an excellent series.  DA:O was an excellent start for whats to come and DA2 added to that, combine the two and with enough time for the devs to play with it before it's released and put on the market you can have a series that could blow a lot of games out of the water.  That's the potential I see in the DA universe, give the series that personal touch as you did with Hawke n the story, combined with what made DA:O such a massive hit and yes I do see DA being one of the most sought after games.  Like I said, DA2 was a testing ground but it wasn't a flop, there's potential there.

Modifié par Thor Rand Al, 27 mars 2012 - 06:49 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Bioware doesn't make Role Playing Games using the term defined by Sylvius. Bioware has never made Role Playing Games, as per his definition. Bioware made games that have been close, but never quite there.

Baldur's Gate.  I cannot think of a problem with Baldur's Gate, roleplaying-wise.

To Sylvius, it's absolute. Either it gives 100% explicit control of the character to the player forever, or it is not a role playing game.

If you can explain to me how a player can roleplay a character who behaves in ways he does not control, I'm open to hearing about it.  I'd love to know how these games are supposed to be played.

I even asked the ME2 devteam for help when I was playing that, because I just didn't get it.  I still don't, because they didn't help me.

If you know how to play these characters, please enlighten me.  I would love to enjoy these games, but apparently I don't know how.

[BubbleDncr]

The OP does not speak for me.

I just want more Dragon Age!

[CarlSpackler]

Thor Rand Al wrote...

Ok, I'm trying to see what you mean and maybe it's because I couldn't get "attached" attached to my Warden and the story as I did with Hawke and theirs but I don't see what was missing between the 2.  I felt more was added.  But this is just my feelings and opinion. 
Yes DA2 didn't have as long as gameplay as Origins, n I've said this before, there are plot holes and yes the reusable areas where there but that's because it didn't have enough time before it was packaged and shipped, so ok right there having a voiced PC took away from the actual content being put into the game.  Basically what you're sayin is if they didn't have to worry about a voiced actor then they could've focused more on the content of the game, am I close?  If that's the case wouldn't that mean it needed more time before it got packaged and shipped?

Yeah I'm talking about content such as quests, game length, etc.  As I understand it you belive the quality was added by adding the voiced prot.

[Thor Rand Al]

CarlSpackler wrote...

Yeah I'm talking about content such as quests, game length, etc.  As I understand it you belive the quality was added by adding the voiced prot.

The lack of quality was because of time, it didn't have the time it needed to add in more content, more into the quests, game length, is what I'm saying.
As I added in my edit, with enough time a game can have both and that's what I see DA2 was lacking, time.

[the_one_54321]

CarlSpackler wrote...
Yeah I'm talking about content such as quests, game length, etc.  As I understand it you belive the quality was added by adding the voiced prot.

Short cuts are also a pretty big deal. The manner in which you accessed everything in DAII was of distinctly low quality. Rushed game; rushed result. If they didn't have to spend so much time and money getting Hawke voiced, maybe that would have turned out slightly differently.

[Pasquale1234]

Thor Rand Al wrote...

Ok, I'm trying to see what you mean and maybe it's because I couldn't get "attached" attached to my Warden and the story as I did with Hawke and theirs but I don't see what was missing between the 2.  I felt more was added.  But this is just my feelings and opinion.

We experienced the games in ways that were practically polar opposites.  I am deeply connected to all of my Wardens, and found the story deeply personal.  I was never able to relate to Hawke as anything more than an NPC which I kinda-sorta directed at times.

Edit: I see DA2 as a sample, (not even the right word) more like a testing ground of what can make for an excellent series.  DA:O was an excellent start for whats to come and DA2 added to that, combine the two and with enough time for the devs to play with it before it's released and put on the market you can have a series that could blow a lot of games out of the water.  That's the potential I see in the DA universe, give the series that personal touch as you did with Hawke n the story, combined with what made DA:O such a massive hit and yes I do see DA being one of the most sought after games.  Like I said, DA2 was a testing ground but it wasn't a flop, there's potential there.

I saw the huge potential in DAO, but since DA2 shifted into a different genre, the DA-verse has lost a great deal of its former appeal for me.  Where you see additions and improvements, I see losses and decline.  Whatever else it did, DA2 certainly seems to have created a division in the fan base.

[Adanu]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Bioware doesn't make Role Playing Games using the term defined by Sylvius. Bioware has never made Role Playing Games, as per his definition. Bioware made games that have been close, but never quite there.

Baldur's Gate.  I cannot think of a problem with Baldur's Gate, roleplaying-wise.

To Sylvius, it's absolute. Either it gives 100% explicit control of the character to the player forever, or it is not a role playing game.

If you can explain to me how a player can roleplay a character who behaves in ways he does not control, I'm open to hearing about it.  I'd love to know how these games are supposed to be played.

I even asked the ME2 devteam for help when I was playing that, because I just didn't get it.  I still don't, because they didn't help me.

If you know how to play these characters, please enlighten me.  I would love to enjoy these games, but apparently I don't know how.

You want all games to mold to your vision. It doesn't wor klike that. You either adapt or you move on.

[the_one_54321]

Adanu wrote...
You want all games to mold to your vision. It doesn't wor klike that. You either adapt or you move on.

All games? Who said anything about all games? Role playing games should have role playing in them.

Here's an idea. I'm new to the sport of Cricket. But you know what? I'm finding that I don't much like how the rules function. I'm more used to baseball and find it easier to understand and more enjoyable. So, lets get rid of the wickets and swtich to taging, lets rename the bowler as the pitcher, and from now on none of the games are to last longer than a short afternoon.

Hey, I'm a sports fan and I have money and an opinion. I hope that the people in charge of the international rules of Cricket will take heed to what I say because there's a whole lot of baseball fans out there that will pay a lot more attention to cricket if they do. The old cricket fans need to adapt or move on.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 07:12 .

[adlocutio]

Adanu wrote...
You want all games to mold to your vision. It doesn't wor klike that. You either adapt or you move on.

We want a game that allows roleplaying. Bioware has done it before. Vision is irrelevant. It either allows roleplaying or it doesn't. No one is saying they shouldn't make other types of games.

[the_one_54321]

adlocutio wrote...
Bioware has done it before. No one is saying they shouldn't make other types of games.

Um, actually I'm saying that.

I'm willing to accept that ME2 was fun. (I haven't played ME3 because of Origin) But I would prefer if they stopped assigning resources to producing shooters with stories and character levels. Because ME2 had really mediocre shooter mechanics with a story and a leveling system wrapped around them.

There are lots of other developers that already make action oriented games. And they are typically much better at it. If I want to play a shooter, I probably pick up one from Valve. If I want to play an action game, there's dozens of developers that know exactly how to do it well. BioWare doesn't have that level of proficiency in mechanical design of these other kinds of games. And it shows.

I think other developers should make those other kinds of games. I think BioWare should stick to genuine RPGs. Their older games that stayed in this mold were far technically superior to what they've been putting out now.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 07:36 .

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I go where the logic leads me.  I go nowhere else.

In the words of a fictional character: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end"

[the_one_54321]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I go where the logic leads me.  I go nowhere else.

In the words of a fictional character: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end"

Logic is the language of describing existence. There is no wisdom that is not also logical.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Bioware doesn't make Role Playing Games using the term defined by Sylvius. Bioware has never made Role Playing Games, as per his definition. Bioware made games that have been close, but never quite there.

Baldur's Gate.  I cannot think of a problem with Baldur's Gate, roleplaying-wise.

Both your character and your companion characters have battle cries and hit reactions that you cannot control. They also have randomly-selected reactions to certain stimuli that you have no control of, such as clicking a target, or telling them to move to a location. You cannot choose not to draw weapons when encountering hostile enemies.

To Sylvius, it's absolute. Either it gives 100% explicit control of the character to the player forever, or it is not a role playing game.

If you can explain to me how a player can roleplay a character who behaves in ways he does not control, I'm open to hearing about it.  I'd love to know how these games are supposed to be played.

I even asked the ME2 devteam for help when I was playing that, because I just didn't get it.  I still don't, because they didn't help me.

If you know how to play these characters, please enlighten me.  I would love to enjoy these games, but apparently I don't know how.

How can I explain to a blind man what blue is? I can provide a scientific explanation about wavelengths of energy, but the blind man will never truly grasp the concept as understood by a sighted person without the necessary hardware.

Unless you can somehow come to value things like timing, pacing, and cinematic expression, then I'm afraid you're just not going to get it. These are things that are valuable to Bioware's Dragon Age leadership, as they've stated time and again. This is why they value things like a voiced protagonist and cinematic gameplay. If you can't see their value, then you'll never enjoy them.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
How can I explain to a blind man what blue is? I can provide a scientific explanation about wavelengths of energy, but the blind man will never truly grasp the concept as understood by a sighted person without the necessary hardware.

You can't explain to anyone what "blue" is, from the perspective of a sighted man. Literal vision is truely subjective. No one can verify how color is or is not percieved by anyone else, except through technical explanation and agreement on variation.

The scientific explanation is quite suficient.

Albert Einstein wrote...
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're skipping a step.  The things I'm complaining about that break roleplaying do so by breaking immersion.

You cannot have roleplaying without having immersion, and you cannot have immersion without allowing roleplaying.

False. As oxford defines it, Immersion is "deep mental involvement".

Immersion is not unique to games, let alone role playing games. There are many who reach a state of immersion by other things, such as watching a well-crafted film, or a sports match that's very important to them. That's immersion as well. There are many games that disallow roleplaying, but still provide immersion to the players who enjoy them. One of the most immersive games (to me) that I've ever played was Uncharted 2, and that provides almost no opportunity to role play at all.

Immersion is not a state that everyone reaches the same way. You may do so via roleplaying, but it is not the same to others.

[Mr Fixit]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The scientific explanation is quite suficient.

"Do you like my sweater?"

"Oh yes, that electromagnetic wavelength of 450 nm looks particularly striking".

I applaud your input.

[the_one_54321]

Mr Fixit wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The scientific explanation is quite suficient.

"Do you like my sweater?"

"Oh yes, that electromagnetic wavelength of 450 nm looks particularly striking".

I applaud your input.

"What color is my sweater?"

Nice try.

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
How can I explain to a blind man what blue is? I can provide a scientific explanation about wavelengths of energy, but the blind man will never truly grasp the concept as understood by a sighted person without the necessary hardware.

You can't explain to anyone what "blue" is, from the perspective of a sighted man. Literal vision is truely subjective. No one can verify how color is or is not percieved by anyone else, except through technical explanation and agreement on variation.

Sort of like trying to explain to someone how to enjoy something they don't?

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Sort of like trying to explain to someone how to enjoy something they don't?

He wasn't asking about enjoyment. What he does and doesn't enjoy has always been plain and out in the open.

I'd venture that his question was rhetorical, and intended to imply that role playing == role playing, and not role playing == not role playing.

[adlocutio]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Um, actually I'm saying that. 

...But I would prefer if they stopped assigning resources to producing shooters with stories and character levels. Because ME2 had really mediocre shooter mechanics with a story and a leveling system wrapped around them.

There are lots of other developers that already make action oriented games. And they are typically much better at it... BioWare doesn't have that level of proficiency in mechanical design of these other kinds of games. And it shows. 

But it sounds like if Bioware made better action games then you wouldn't mind it. But my point was in reference to "all games." When I said "they," I meant all developers, not just Bioware.
Edit: I was unclear.

Modifié par adlocutio, 27 mars 2012 - 08:08 .

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Sort of like trying to explain to someone how to enjoy something they don't?

He wasn't asking about enjoyment. What he does and doesn't enjoy has always been plain and out in the open.

I'd venture that his question was rhetorical, and intended to imply that role playing == role playing, and not role playing == not role playing.

I just see role playing as the ability to make decisions for a character, and have those decisions recognized. It isn't a binary thing. If the game provides me decisions to make, and I think about my character and what sort of decisions the character would make under those situations, then I believe I am role-playing. If the character sometimes does things that I don't get to decide, that doesn't always invalidate the decisions I made up until that point. I may not be role-playing at that point, but I don't consider the role-playing quality to be the entire game so much as a single (large) component among several. I also don't play strategy games to only strategize, I don't play action games only for action, and I don't play fighting games only to fight.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Both your character and your companion characters have battle cries and hit reactions that you cannot control. They also have randomly-selected reactions to certain stimuli that you have no control of, such as clicking a target, or telling them to move to a location. You cannot choose not to draw weapons when encountering hostile enemies.

But those are immaterial.  They make no difference.  As they have no in-game effect, they are effectively UI elements.

Whereas, the facial expressions in DA2's cutscenes appear to offer important context that's necessary to interpret upcoming paraphrases properly.

If I don't accept that Hawke is sad, for example, I won't understand the relationship between the dialogue options and their associated paraphrases and tone icons.

How can I explain to a blind man what blue is? I can provide a scientific explanation about wavelengths of energy, but the blind man will never truly grasp the concept as understood by a sighted person without the necessary hardware.

Are you suggesting that I somehow lack the capacity to undersatnd your gameplay?  That your gameplay is beyond me?

Unless you can somehow come to value things like timing, pacing, and cinematic expression, then I'm afraid you're just not going to get it. These are things that are valuable to Bioware's Dragon Age leadership, as they've stated time and again. This is why they value things like a voiced protagonist and cinematic gameplay. If you can't see their value, then you'll never enjoy them.

I didn't ask how to enjoy the games - that would be particular to each player, as each player enjoys different aspects of any given game.  No, I asked how to roleplay in them.  You insist that roleplaying is somehow possible within these games.  I want to know how you do it.