942 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr Fixit]

the_one_54321 wrote...

"What color is my sweater?"

Nice try.

Playing dumb doesn't really suit a logical being such as yourself.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
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.

I also think that the other elements are very important to enjoying the game. But action is a deal breaker. The line must be drawn here. This far, no further.

[the_one_54321]

Mr Fixit wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
"What color is my sweater?"

Nice try.

Playing dumb doesn't really suit a logical being such as yourself.

Your analogy was incompatible with the subject matter. Whether or not someone likes a color is unrelated to explaining what the color is.

[Mr Fixit]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
"What color is my sweater?"

Nice try.

Playing dumb doesn't really suit a logical being such as yourself.

Your analogy was incompatible with the subject matter. Whether or not someone likes a color is unrelated to explaining what the color is.

Can you explain what a father is to someone who's never had one? You would say yes. I would say no. If you can't understand that, I'm sorry.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

To you. They still take away player agency, but you don't feel they do so in a significant enough manner to break immersion for you. There could be someone even more Sylvius-ey out there who feels that this is a travesty, because the player is literally losing control of his or her character for a decision he or she could make.

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.

It's a question of what you can accept. Maybe you don't accept that Hawke is sad. I do, and I'm fine with it. Immersion not broken for me.

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

That is exactly what I am suggesting. You've certainly never given me any reason to doubt this conclusion.

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.

The same way you can roleplay in Baldur's Gate without being able to choose your own battle cries. You work within the constraints given.

[the_one_54321]

Mr Fixit wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
"What color is my sweater?"

Nice try.

Playing dumb doesn't really suit a logical being such as yourself.

Your analogy was incompatible with the subject matter. Whether or not someone likes a color is unrelated to explaining what the color is.

Can you explain what a father is to someone who's never had one? You would say yes. I would say no. If you can't understand that, I'm sorry.

You cannot create empathy, or recreate the experience in the person hearing the explanation. But you can explain the emotions, and the technicalities of the concept quite easily. If you understand them well enough to do so.

[Mr Fixit]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You cannot create empathy, or recreate the experience in the person hearing the explanation. But you can explain the emotions, and the technicalities of the concept quite easily. If you understand them well enough to do so.

Explain the emotions? Technicalities of the concept? I have no idea what you're talking about, to be perfectly honest. And I don't mean that as some insult.

[bEVEsthda]

I must say that I'm prepared to be wrong in some way, but I think I've figured this out:

Those who play DA2 and enjoy it and say they are "role playing", play this and similar (in their perception) games in a way where they relate to the protagonist as they relate to the 'hero' in a movie or book.

So they identify, in an empathy way. Engage in the fate.


And that is quite different from how S.t.Mad, I and others "role play".

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 27 mars 2012 - 08:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

It's a question of what you can accept. Maybe you don't accept that Hawke is sad. I do, and I'm fine with it. Immersion not broken for me.

Had you already decided Hawke was sad, and thus what the game showed you was consistent with your design, or did you retcon sadness into your character once the game told you he was?

If the former, then you're potentially playing the game just like I am, but you happened to be playing a character who was relevantly similar to the character BioWare expected you to play.

If the latter, how do you reconcile this sadness with Hawke's previous decisions which were made when you were unaware of Hawke's feelings?

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You cannot create empathy

Particularly since it isn't real.

[Lilacs]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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?

 
I would shake your hand and hug you even if I were where you are. It has always been my premise that in order to role-play, truly role-play, one must have access—full access to your character’s mind, to be able to control her or his thoughts and actions. My character should not utter anything that I, the player, have no control or access to. However, if I am controlling my PC, are inside her psyche, I can do that. To me that’s true role-playing.

I would not mention this: having the ability to truly partake in an enjoyable role-playing experience, the way I like it with other gaming companies, but I will with Bioware. Bioware is a company that had allowed more control of one’s main character in their past titles (It is for this reason why I enjoy their games immensely and I why I am an ardent fan). The departure from this immersive environment (having full control of one’s PC) started with ME2 and continued on to DA II, where the regulation of your character is not fully under control. 

I have enjoyed all Bioware’s games from Baldur’s Gate to ME1. Most would argue that having a voice protagonist has denigrated the immersive role-playing aspect of Bioware’s games. I would not fully agree with them. Yes, having a voice protagonist does diminish some of the resources that could go into improving the aspects of Bioware’s games that we, fans, enjoy. Paraphrasing as it goes doesn’t mean that your character must utter something entirely different of what, you, the player believes your PC would state.  
 
It was argued that the paraphrase system would introduce the first portion of what your PC would actually say. To me that would have worked perfectly. That would give us, the players, an undeniably  clear idea of our PC’s thought process. However, when chosen said paraphrased, what my character ended delivering is not what I believe she would say. To me, that’s the flaw of having a voiced protagonist in Bioware’s latest game entries (you cannot truly control the outcome of an interaction between your PC and an NPC or with your companions).

Besides that, having a voiced protagonist (as in SWToR) does add an element (especially in DA II and now SWToR) that I do enjoy. She is more alive and more engaged and thus added a new flavor in the game for me. If only Bioware delivers on its promise (using paraphrases that would continue into the choice I select for my PC to deliver), having a voiced protagonist would make the game more immersive and more enjoyable for me.
 
Conversely, having full control of your character’s companions (i.e., customization) is another feature I would like Bioware to re-introduce in DA III. Most of the Armor I looted, I could not equip them on my companions. Role-playing is about making mistakes, about learning what works or doesn’t. A difficult encounter can easily teach us to not equip our character (and our companions) in gears that won’t allow for a successful outcome. Also making mistakes are also fun, because they are part of living of learning (we are role-playing :-)  hence having fun). I love it when I play a game that allows me to integrate my personality into it, of molding my PC to react as I would. In DA II, I was able to some extent. What did kill it for me was that certain choices were fixed and out of my control. No matter what I do, the outcome is at it was programmed to occur.
 
Bioware, I am asking you to please return to your roots and keep what works in your latest entries (DA II did some things right for me) and deliver in DA III.

P.S. I would rather have Bioware concentrate on DA III rather than an expansion. So, this is a good call there Bioware.

Modifié par Lilacs, 27 mars 2012 - 10:10 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

It's a question of what you can accept. Maybe you don't accept that Hawke is sad. I do, and I'm fine with it. Immersion not broken for me.

Had you already decided Hawke was sad, and thus what the game showed you was consistent with your design, or did you retcon sadness into your character once the game told you he was?

If the former, then you're potentially playing the game just like I am, but you happened to be playing a character who was relevantly similar to the character BioWare expected you to play.

If the latter, how do you reconcile this sadness with Hawke's previous decisions which were made when you were unaware of Hawke's feelings?

Sometimes the former, sometimes the latter.

For the former, it's like the baldur's gate battlecries. It's immaterial to me, and I don't care.

For the latter, I revise the character concept and see if I can think of a motivation and reasoning for it. If I can't do that, then I reload and pick a different option.

I feel that gaming is a collaborative effort... I have to put in some effort to get enjoyment from the game. Sometimes the amount of effort needed is too high, and I don't enjoy it. Other times it isn't too high, and I do.

[maglalosus]

Tesclo wrote...

http://www.shacknews...r-opportunities

This is a complete joke. No we obviously do not want a Dragon Age 2 expansion. To be honest, I don't even think many would buy DLC. We do NOT want more of the same. Bioware, we wan't the "spiritual successor" to Baulder's Gate. It's that simple. We want what was promised to us in Dragon Age: Origins. This is so simple to grasp, yet you refuse to give the paying customers what they want. Give us back Origins. You have your FPS in Mass Effect. This series was supposed to be for us. And there IS a market for it. People still play RPGs.

I can't believe I actually have to even write this. Go back to your roots Bioware.

Well said! They really need to do a complete 180 and bring back origins with a new story, it doesnt even have to be about the wardens. Or even better, just give us a NWN3 haha. but don't change anything!

[the_one_54321]

Mr Fixit wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You cannot create empathy, or recreate the experience in the person hearing the explanation. But you can explain the emotions, and the technicalities of the concept quite easily. If you understand them well enough to do so.

Explain the emotions? Technicalities of the concept? I have no idea what you're talking about, to be perfectly honest. And I don't mean that as some insult.

If you understand how you feel, then you can explain that feeling to someone. If you understand the biology of becoming a father, you can explain that concept to someone. It's not that hard, so long as you have an adequate understanding.

Furthermore, it is a fallacy to state "because it is hard/impossible for me to understand my emotions, it must also be hard/impossible for someone else to understand his/her emotions."

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You cannot create empathy

Particularly since it isn't real.

Brain scans have shown that there is an area of the brain wherein there is a direct reproduction of the chemical action in in another person's brain, when the person is participating in a social exchange. In specific, in measuring the responses in individuals, this study identified that when women listen to the problems of others, they automatically stimulate this region of the brain leading to a direct reproduction of the emotional state in the other individual, whereas in men it was observed that a switch to the problem solving region of the brain happened quickly thereafter.

Note; I am not making any claim or point about men or women. This is only to illustrate that the direct physical reproduction of the emotions of another human does exist as a result of social interaction. A region of the brain that accomplishes this has been identified.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 09:26 .

[Mr Fixit]

All I'm saying is that someone who's never had a father won't be able to truly comprehend what it means to have one.

In the same vein, all the nanometers in this world won't help a blind person see a color. Yeah, he can understand it from a physics standpoint, but to him it's just a mathematical concept.

In the same same vein, someone who reduces role-playing games to role-playing *only*, won't be able to appreciate how others derive enjoyment from other aspects of them.

[the_one_54321]

Mr Fixit wrote...
All I'm saying is that someone who's never had a father won't be able to truly comprehend what it means to have one.

In the same vein, all the nanometers in this world won't help a blind person see a color. Yeah, he can understand it from a physics standpoint, but to him it's just a mathematical concept.

In the same same vein, someone who reduces role-playing games to role-playing *only*, won't be able to appreciate how others derive enjoyment from other aspects of them.

Understanding enjoyment has never been the issue.

A technical understanding is all that is necessary. You are attributing value to emotional responses to an actual experience, rather than understanding. That is not a parallel of the topic at hand. Those concepts are not related to the concepts we are discussing.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 09:28 .

[Realmzmaster]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Adanu wrote...

DA2 was not a flop. Its ridiculous to say it was when clearly they are still going forward.

DA2 sold on two things.

1.Hype
2.The reputation of DA.

Once those two things were proved false sales fell off a cliff. You don't stop trying just because something was a flop. Until the Wii came along Nintendo had failed twice.

Which it the sam e thing DAO sold on.

1. Hype
2. The spiritual successor to BG.

One lived up to the hype more than the other. DAO is still not the spiritual successor to BG (IMHO).

[Mr Fixit]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Understanding enjoyment has never been the issue.

A technical understanding is all that is necessary. You are attributing value to emotional responses to an actual experience, rather than understanding. That is not a parallel of the topic at hand. Those concepts are not related to the concepts we are discussing.

I may be lacking in intellectual prowess, and for that I apologize. But I don't have a clue what we're discussing. All this obfuscation and dancing around is frankly wearying.

[the_one_54321]

Group N: A Role Playing Game is X. I want to play X. I don't want to play Not-X.

Group M: No, a Role Playing Game is Y. I want to play Y.

Group O: No, a Role Playing Game is Z. I want to play Z, but Y is also fine becauseY and Z are very similar.

Me: I don't care if youc all it an RPG or not. I use the term X and I want to play X regardless of what anyone wants to call it. I have described X in great detail. That's the kind of game I want to play. I'm not interested in playing any other kind of game for any other reason, so long as it's BioWare making the game.

Subset-Group O: Ok, that's fine.

Subset-Group M: I hated X. I want them to keep making Y. I don't want them to make X anymore.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 09:36 .

[Mr Fixit]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Me: I don't care if youc all it an RPG or not. I use the term X and I want to play X regardless of what anyone wants to call it. I have described X in great detail. That's the kind of game I want to play. I'm not interested in playing any other kind of game for any other reason, so long as it's BioWare making the game.

That I can appreciate. Me, I have a different set of priorities in an RPG, and that's OK too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

It's a question of what you can accept. Maybe you don't accept that Hawke is sad. I do, and I'm fine with it. Immersion not broken for me.

Had you already decided Hawke was sad, and thus what the game showed you was consistent with your design, or did you retcon sadness into your character once the game told you he was?

If the former, then you're potentially playing the game just like I am, but you happened to be playing a character who was relevantly similar to the character BioWare expected you to play.

If the latter, how do you reconcile this sadness with Hawke's previous decisions which were made when you were unaware of Hawke's feelings?

Sometimes the former, sometimes the latter.

For the former, it's like the baldur's gate battlecries. It's immaterial to me, and I don't care.

For the latter, I revise the character concept and see if I can think of a motivation and reasoning for it. If I can't do that, then I reload and pick a different option.

I feel that gaming is a collaborative effort... I have to put in some effort to get enjoyment from the game. Sometimes the amount of effort needed is too high, and I don't enjoy it. Other times it isn't too high, and I do.

I will give DA2 credit for this - by introducing an explicitly unrelliable narrator, it gave me tremendous leeway to ignore those aspects of Hawke's behaviour with which I disagreed.  Just as I ignore those BG battlecries (because they're irrelevant), any detail of Hawke's delivery of lines or cutscene behaviour which contradicts my character design can be dismissed as Varric's embellishment.

Unfortunately, this produced large swaths of gameplay in which I had no interest.  An NPC would offer a quest in which Hawke had no interest, and thus Hawke didn't do it.  But Varric said he did, so I had to play through it even though the outcome didn't matter to me at all.  That wouldn't have been so bad if the gameplay had been fun, but DA2's combat wasn't fun on its own.  It was dull and repetitive.  And it wouldn't have been so bad if the quests hadn't so often been forced upon Hawke no matter his preferences.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
(because they're irrelevant)

Where do you draw the line of relevance between one audible and another?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If the latter, how do you reconcile this sadness with Hawke's previous decisions which were made when you were unaware of Hawke's feelings?

The characters very existence is dynamic, according to my dictation. I can rewrite his history as a I please, and, as it would with a human should his past experiences in life change, rewriting the characters past experiences changes his current disposition.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 09:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

You cannot create empathy

Particularly since it isn't real.

Brain scans have shown that there is an area of the brain wherein there is a direct reproduction of the chemical action in in another person's brain, when the person is participating in a social exchange. In specific, in measuring the responses in individuals, this study identified that when women listen to the problems of others, they automatically stimulate this region of the brain leading to a direct reproduction of the emotional state in the other individual, whereas in men it was observed that a switch to the problem solving region of the brain happened quickly thereafter.

Note; I am not making any claim or point about men or women. This is only to illustrate that the direct physical reproduction of the emotions of another human does exist as a result of social interaction. A region of the brain that accomplishes this has been identified.

But what's happening has been misidentified.  The brain produces emotional reactions that mimic how the subject would feel if she were in the place of the person she's observing.  This causes her to project her own emotions onto the other person and then believe she's actually perceiving emotions.

But she's not, because sometimes the system breaks.  What you describe only works in a way that resembles empathy when the two people in question are relevantly similar.  If they are not (for example, if the person being observed is autistic), then the supposed empathy that arises in the person who observes the other individual will not accurately mimic the emotions of the autistic person.

Empathy, as you describe it, only allows people who are relevantly similar to perceive their own emotions in others.  For people who are not relevantly similar, the system breaks.  Therefore, empathy isn't actually perceiving emotions.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Unfortunately, this produced large swaths of gameplay in which I had no interest.  An NPC would offer a quest in which Hawke had no interest, and thus Hawke didn't do it. 

Is it possible to conceive of a Hawke who would be interested in the quest? Do you as a player have no interest in playing such a character?

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
(because they're irrelevant)

Where do you draw the line of relevance between one audible and another?

Where they make a difference.  In these new BioWare games, the game world reacts to the voiced line, no to the paraphrase.  If the world reacted to the paraphrase instead, then the voice would be irrelevant and I wouldn't care that it existed at all.

But if you play DA2 with the voices disabled and don't read the PC's subtitles, the NPC reactions become uninterpretable.  They'll cower in fear in response to a simple "Yes", for example.

I don't mind when NPC's behave in ways I don't understand, but I do mind when they always behave in ways I don't understand.  That effectively renders the game a world filled with madmen and the PC is the only sane one.  That's just not an enjoyable environment.