942 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Brockololly wrote...

Again, thats not entirely true. Sure, you're experiencing unique content based on your choices in Act 2, but TW2 still lets you make potentially big, nation defining choices in Act 3. Some of which could create major differences to the world at large in subsequent games, if they're still focused in the Northern Kingdoms and even if they're not potentially.

 

Hm, then I'll stop using it as an example and instead rely on a hypothetical game that puts the bulk of its major choices in the middle.

Mayhaps I will finish TW2 at some point, as well, but that's unlikely.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 avril 2012 - 03:42 .

[Jonathan Seagull]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
In the latter, a vague character concept is made more complete by the actions they take in the game.  As such, my characters aren't truly finished until the end of the game, part of the process is discovery.

That's typically how I play, too.  I start with a somewhat basic personality (and after the first playthrough, usually a few things I want to be sure they do) and fill it in a bit as I go.

The best example is my second Warden, a female city elf.  I originally envisioned her as somewhat villainous; I wanted her to be more of a bad guy in comparison to my more noble original Warden.  She was going to totally play Alistair to get close to the future king, and generally be nasty.  But as I played the game, something strange happened, which genuinely surprised me.  As certain choices approached and presented themselves, I found myself thinking 'No, she wouldn't actually do that.  She's a a city elf; she hates any form of slavery and would never allow the anvil to be used.'  She also turned out to have a bit of genuine affection for Alistair.

It's not so much that I rewrote my concept of the character, but that I realized more depth to it.  I found I was actually able to do a much better job roleplaying her as the game progressed.

Now, to briefly touch on the topic of paraphrasing, I'm pretty okay with it either way.  If we could see the full line of dialogue, that's great.  But I'm completely fine with the paraphrases, so long as they accurately represent both the content and the tone of what the character is going to say.  I only occasionally had a real problem with this in DA2, but I'd still like to see it improved a bit for the next installment.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Which you know is not the kind of game Bioware creates. Not even BG1 & BG2.

Both BG games allowed you to use any party member as party spokesperson.  BG's manual explicitly told you to use eh character with the highest Charisma score.

BG didn't just let us play all the characters.  BG was designed specifically with that in mind.

In BG2's case, that appears to have been an accident.  The writers didn't know that the player could do this (David Gaider confirmed this years later), and wrote all the dialogue assuming the PC was leading the party.

Filament wrote...

They probably don't expect most of the people who play their games to be as rigid and uncompromising as you in demanding this separation between PC and player be maintained at all times.

But this suggests that they can't do it themselves, or that they expect that no one does it.  Either way,  my speaking out helps.

I may just be projecting, but I doubt most players see the game as strictly a roleplaying simulator as you do, but also as a vehicle for delivering a well-told story to the player... cinematic effects like that are one way of helping tell a story.

But as I pointed out, they are not a necessary tool.

I would hope that the designers would think through their designs to see what gameplay consequences they will have.  Not just seeing how the game could be played within the design, but seeing all the ways it might be played.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 avril 2012 - 05:58 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rorschachinstein wrote...

If they're anything like the one where Hawke throws a dagger into a Slavers eye,  I say have at em'

I hate that slaver scene.  Try playing a Hawke who bears the slaver no ill will.  Try letting the slaver go because you have no quarrel with him.  Try being civil.

It can't be done.

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are right about first week sales, but the ME3 train is continuing to pick up steam. Sales appear to remain strong through the second and into the third week The Xbox version is particularly strong (selling over 160,000 copies in week 3). If VGChartz (which is somewhat iffy at best) is anything to go by ME3 has sold 3.21 million copies not counting digital downloads.

So it on track to be Bioware's most successful title regardless of the ending.

That still doesn't tell us anything about the voice, other than it isn't a barrier to many people's enjoyment.  But we also know it is a barrier to many people's enjoyment.  Those people, though, appear not to be the people who want to play action games or multiplayer, so including a feature that those players dislike has no effect on the game's sales, because they weren't going to buy the game anyway.

I knew I wasn't going to buy ME3 shortly after beginning ME2, and seeing how they'd made no progress at all in improving the paraphrase ssytem, and talking with a developer about the philosphy behind the interrupts (with which I strongly disagree).  If ME2 was the direction they liked, then the series ended for me with the first game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 avril 2012 - 05:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But this sort of cinematic flair runs directly contrary to first-person roleplaying concerns.

There, you answered your dilemma yourself. BioWare doesn't care that their techniques run contrary to first-person roleplaying concerns in this (and other) instance. Simple as that.

That would only make sense if they were actually improving their third-person story-telling, but they're not.  They're just being cute.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 avril 2012 - 05:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I think it's as simple as following the roleplaying vs. rolechoosing distinction to it's logical conclusion.

If you're roleplaying a character - as you do - then you're right.  
If you're "rolechoosing" a character - as I do - then your character concept wasn't so precise as to be broken by a somewhat unexpected decision in the first place.  

In the former, a thoroughly constructed character must act according to their design or be broken.  You've explained the difficulties games like DA2 present to this approach at length, so I don't need to summarize.
In the latter, a vague character concept is made more complete by the actions they take in the game.  As such, my characters aren't truly finished until the end of the game, part of the process is discovery.

I don't find that discovering my character is any fun.

If I don't know who he is at the start, why do I care about him at all?

Movies don't generally do this.  In movies, the characters are introduced, and then once we know them we get to watch them encounter plot events.  If we don't know them already, then we have no reason to care about them.

Any discovery needs to happen before we get to the rising action.  If they're appealing to other media for the rules of narrative, I  refer to:

1. Introduction
2. Rising Action
3. Complication
4. Climax
5. Denouement

If we're discovering our character throughout, then they've broken the sequence.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't find that discovering my character is any fun.

I don't find your approach fun either.  I don't see the point in arguing over whose approach is fun and whose isn't.  They work for us.

Your meta-analysis of character arcs in media also runs contrary to my experience, but it's mostly off-topic.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 avril 2012 - 06:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

If you don't know him, why do you care what happens to him?

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you don't know him, why do you care what happens to him?

I just met them.  I don't know everything about them yet.  I do not require total understanding of who a person is in order to care about them.  That said, people I've known for years surprise me all the time.  This is heading towards one of those fundamental-disagreements-about-life arguments, I think.

Edit: Also, be careful not to read too much into the word choice of "truly finished until the end."  It doesn't take till the credits start rolling to have a strong enough grasp of who the character is.  I'd say in DA2 I had a relatively complete concept by the beginning of Act 3.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 avril 2012 - 06:09 .

[Aly666]

cJohnOne wrote...

Aly666 wrote...

sorry i was not clear enough but dragon age 2 map is complete **** compared to origins map i want the map like origins. There's so much more then dragon age 2 because its not super reoccuring. So when i say like skyrim i dont actually mean like skyrim i mean make like origins map but bigger. Obviously i want more not less 

Ha, Ha.  You think it should be bigger than Origins?  Origins was a big game.  I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect a longer game than Origins.

well if it is a long game it would rule out the possibilties all the conflicts won't be so random and sudden. So make it long it only benefits them for making a better game and us for liking it.

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That would only make sense if they were actually improving their third-person story-telling, but they're not.  They're just being cute.

What does cinematic flair have to do with being cute?

What is game developer's job? If their job is to create games people enjoy, then your argument is a non-starter, really.

Mass Effect trilogy, for example, is being enjoyed by millions of people. If it appealed to them while being a financial success, who are we to say that the developers don't have a clue with implementing stuff? Are you saying that all those people who liked those cinematics are wrong?

I just can't fathom how you don't understand what preference is. Even is devs make the most hideous game ever, and if that game finds a substantial following which guarantees devs' continued exploration of that franchise, who are we to say they don't know what they're doing.

Is their goal to earn $$$? Did they earn $$$? If they did, then I'd say they accomplished what they set out to do. They found a loyal audience that is more or less satisfied with the product. So it's really condescending to both devs and players to imply that their preference is somehow wrong just because it runs contrary to some Law of Logic.

[YohkoOhno]

I suspect most gamers don't care about character control as much as being able to set the direction of the story.

I used to think everybody who played an RPG was into defining their own persona, etc., but when the first big MMOs hit, it proved the opposite. Most people just wanted to level up and eschewed the story, in fact there's a whole social culture outside the role-playing in WoW, for instance. This is where things started to get shifted around in gaming culture.

I think the key thing is that Bioware is moving from the old school Western RPG to a blend of W and JRPG. They still have the character customization of the older days, but it is more directed and blended with a strong narrative, even if it sacrifices some character control. People talk about "my character", but really I'm seeing it more now as controlling a specific pre-defined persona and adding limited traits--customization for combat, and determining the general plot directions, but having some of the narrative be a collaberation between the player and Bioware. Really, even the best technology you can only do things they allow. And Bioware isn't the only one to do this--Witcher 2 gives you even more limited choices--you're only allow to choose Geralt's specializations path and make choices that aren't really moral choices but seem reasonable for that character (based on his novels).

The key thing is that, for every change in how games are provided, there will always be some who get disenfranchised along the way. The "fanbase" is not static. Honestly, we need to put a stake in the heart of Baldur's Gate. Those days are over. That was over a decade ago. No company remains the same--as Bioware has developed new games, people came on board during Neverwinter Nights 1, Neverwinter Nights 2, Jade Empire, Dragon Age Origins, and Mass Effect. They get new fans over the time they lose the old fans. I'm actually happy we have Mass Effect because it brings shooter fans into something more deeper than the typical action shooter, and that's the type of impact that Bioware needs to follow.

[AkiKishi]

YohkoOhno wrote...

I suspect most gamers don't care about character control as much as being able to set the direction of the story.

Once you start down the cinematic road it's not really possible without having a character that is more of a spectator than a protagonist.
On the other hand you can still set the direction of the story and how you play it with a fully realised character like Jensen,Thornton etc.

[YohkoOhno]

Exactly. I think they may need to define the character a little more fully, and that's where I think they will head in future Bioware games.

One thing that might be good for continuity would be to have a companion become the new protagonist in a sequel in Dragon Age, or a major NPC that might be involved in a core mission. That way, you get to understand the character, and then are prepared for the next game. It keeps some continuity while also giving you more background, enough so you understand the character better when starting.

Hawke should have had an origin story or something similar--there was very little exposition for the character this way, and I think that's one of the reason DA2 missed it's mark.

[Merci357]

BobSmith101 wrote...

YohkoOhno wrote...

I suspect most gamers don't care about character control as much as being able to set the direction of the story.

Once you start down the cinematic road it's not really possible without having a character that is more of a spectator than a protagonist.
On the other hand you can still set the direction of the story and how you play it with a fully realised character like Jensen,Thornton etc.

Protagonist: A protagonist is the main character (the central or primary personal figure) of a literary, theatrical, cinematic, or musical narrative [...] and with whom the audience is intended to most identify.

That's the definition - Adam, Mike or Geralt are as much a protagonist as the Warden or the Courier.

You, the player, are more of a spectator when playing with Adam, sure. Adam himself is no more a spectator then any silent PC of the past.

[AkiKishi]

Merci357 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

YohkoOhno wrote...

I suspect most gamers don't care about character control as much as being able to set the direction of the story.

Once you start down the cinematic road it's not really possible without having a character that is more of a spectator than a protagonist.
On the other hand you can still set the direction of the story and how you play it with a fully realised character like Jensen,Thornton etc.

Protagonist: A protagonist is the main character (the central or primary personal figure) of a literary, theatrical, cinematic, or musical narrative [...] and with whom the audience is intended to most identify.

That's the definition - Adam, Mike or Geralt are as much a protagonist as the Warden or the Courier.

You, the player, are more of a spectator when playing with Adam, sure. Adam himself is no more a spectator then any silent PC of the past.

You misunderstood. I was not saying they were not. I was saying that in order not to have characters like Jensen etc. in a cinematic game and still be empty vessels would require them to be more spectators. With NPCs driving the story.

[Merci357]

BobSmith101 wrote...

You misunderstood. I was not saying they were not. I was saying that in order not to have characters like Jensen etc. in a cinematic game and still be empty vessels would require them to be more spectators. With NPCs driving the story.

Now that makes sense, thanks for explaining.
Sorry, sometimes you notice that english is only my 3rd language...

[Nighteye2]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you don't know him, why do you care what happens to him?

I just met them.  I don't know everything about them yet.  I do not require total understanding of who a person is in order to care about them.  That said, people I've known for years surprise me all the time.  This is heading towards one of those fundamental-disagreements-about-life arguments, I think.

The whole discussion boils down to a matter of perspective. Where Sylvius (and me) wants to play his (or jointly his and Bioware's) character in Bioware's world, you're perfectly fine with just playing Bioware's character in Bioware's world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you regards the player character as just another character created by Bioware, that you merely happen to be able to give directions to.
That's different from seeing your player character as partly your own creation, 100% controlled by you within the confines of how Bioware programmed the game.

[upsettingshorts]

You're creating a distinction in not quite the same way I would.

I think the PC is partly my own creation because BioWare isn't exclusively deciding which options I choose, or even (usually, there are exceptions) why I choose them. However, the options exist solely because they created them - and sometimes no option is given, such as in cutscenes - and I am comfortable working within those confines.

But broadly speaking, I am choosing which version of BioWare's character in BioWare's world I'm playing and why, and I don't think paraphrases or voiceovers have changed that in any way. I've always felt as if I've been doing that. Those features just make the same experience more enjoyable to me.

In short:  It's cooperative. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 avril 2012 - 09:03 .

[upsettingshorts]

Just to add, I think, you seem to be assuming that I'd play Hawke as (just to pick one) 100% Diplomatic, or a Shepard as 100% Paragon. That's not what I mean.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 avril 2012 - 09:06 .

[Nighteye2]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You're creating a distinction in not quite the same way I would.

I think the PC is partly my own creation because BioWare isn't exclusively deciding which options I choose, or even (usually, there are exceptions) why I choose them. However, the options exist solely because they created them - and sometimes no option is given, such as in cutscenes - and I am comfortable working within those confines.

But broadly speaking, I am choosing which version of BioWare's character in BioWare's world I'm playing and why, and I don't think paraphrases or voiceovers have changed that in any way. I've always felt as if I've been doing that. Those features just make the same experience more enjoyable to me.

In short:  It's cooperative. 

Yes, there are some nuances I missed - but despite the freedom of choice you use, you're still speaking about choosing your version of Bioware's character - not your character.

A small distinction with big consequences, like the acceptability of paraphrases and spontaneous uncontrolled action of the player character.

[AkiKishi]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You're creating a distinction in not quite the same way I would.

I think the PC is partly my own creation because BioWare isn't exclusively deciding which options I choose, or even (usually, there are exceptions) why I choose them. However, the options exist solely because they created them - and sometimes no option is given, such as in cutscenes - and I am comfortable working within those confines.

But broadly speaking, I am choosing which version of BioWare's character in BioWare's world I'm playing and why, and I don't think paraphrases or voiceovers have changed that in any way. I've always felt as if I've been doing that. Those features just make the same experience more enjoyable to me.

In short:  It's cooperative. 

Yes, there are some nuances I missed - but despite the freedom of choice you use, you're still speaking about choosing your version of Bioware's character - not your character.

A small distinction with big consequences, like the acceptability of paraphrases and spontaneous uncontrolled action of the player character.

You have never wholly created your own character in a Bioware game. Black Isle game IWD/IWD2 sure, but never in a Bioware game.
I personally draw the line at being a someone rather than a something.Child of Bhaal, Warden I can work with that, but once you make the character a someone like Hawke you may as well make it a complete someone like Adam Jensen, it's better for the game.

[Mr Fixit]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I personally draw the line at being a someone rather than a something.Child of Bhaal, Warden I can work with that, but once you make the character a someone like Hawke you may as well make it a complete someone like Adam Jensen, it's better for the game.

Agreed. If you go in, you may as well go all in. A complete character offers you far more opportunities for a character-tailored narrative experience.

As any tennis fan will tell you, being stuck in no man's land (between blank slate and defined) is the worst place to be.

[hoorayforicecream]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Yes, there are some nuances I missed - but despite the freedom of choice you use, you're still speaking about choosing your version of Bioware's character - not your character.

How does this argument not apply to every RPG system in existence? At some level they all have restrictions (class, skill, rules, etc.) that they impose on you for whatever reason; it's just that the acceptable levels of restriction vary from player to player.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you don't know him, why do you care what happens to him?

I just met them.  I don't know everything about them yet.  I do not require total understanding of who a person is in order to care about them.  That said, people I've known for years surprise me all the time.  This is heading towards one of those fundamental-disagreements-about-life arguments, I think.

Edit: Also, be careful not to read too much into the word choice of "truly finished until the end."  It doesn't take till the credits start rolling to have a strong enough grasp of who the character is.  I'd say in DA2 I had a relatively complete concept by the beginning of Act 3.

I'll admit that at no point in DA2 was I trying to get to know Hawke, because it never occured to me that such a thing could be necessary.

And I never want to play a game like that.  The reason I play these games is to create a character and see what he does.  If I'm not allowed to create the character, then these games offer me nothing at all.