942 réponses à ce sujet

[Adanu]

Yrkoon wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.
 

LOL

Skyrim  would like to have 10 million+ words with you

Skyrim sucks for your example. I don't consider it an RPG. It's a sandbox in a fantasy setting.

[the_one_54321]

Action combat.

[TEWR]

Restraint wrote...

They don't want to show the full line because it undermines the presentation, takes up a lot of UI space, and in any case wouldn't be a perfect solution to the problem of unexpected outcomes.

Origins for example was designed with full line dialogue and silent pc in mind and still there was more than one situation where the intended meaning of the sentence I chose did not mesh with the reaction it got. The problem would be exacerbated with a voiced PC who communicates like a real person.

I don't see how it wouldn't be a perfect solution. In origins, you weren't shown the tone -- but I maintain that the tone can never be changed, despite what some people may think.

In DAII, however, you have the tone.


*reposting this to further my point*

Take for example the highlighted option: Then we fight.

It's aggressive and to the point. That's good. We know the tone of what's being said.

The actual response is We'll take the bastards down with us.

So, what is often proposed is that when the option is highlighted, after a few seconds the actual response is shown at the very top of the screen. Or the bottom. Either as a surtitle or a subtitle. It doesn't matter.

Then, players that want to know what they're saying know both the tone and the actual response.

So I think that solves the issue of unexpected outcomes.

Undermining presentation? I think that's relatively minor compared to undermining peoples' control of the PC. I think that can be solved by re-reading the paraphrase before selecting, where that would be what's fresh in the player's mind and wouldn't present an issue of "I just heard what I read!"

But that might not work, and it's not something I'd need to do. Admittedly, I wouldn't be bothered by reading the full line and hearing it, mainly because I read to myself instead of aloud.

Now, this isn't to say presentation isn't important. But I think player control should be prioritized over presentation.

I would know what's being said, along with how it's being said, and not feel like my PC is not my own.

But this part of your post isn't something I'm truly fit to argue so I shan't continue, for fear of saying things that are either irrelevant, strawmen, or just idiotic and absurd.

As for the UI, well, I don't know what's meant by "it takes up a lot of UI space".

[Corto81]

Adanu wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.
 

LOL

Skyrim  would like to have 10 million+ words with you

Skyrim sucks for your example. I don't consider it an RPG. It's a sandbox in a fantasy setting.

YOU don't consider it an RPG.

99% of people do. Because it IS an RPG.

[Restraint]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


 but I maintain that the tone can never be changed, despite what some people may think.

I'd be interested to see you elaborate on this. It's a little opaque but it kind of looks like you're claiming it is impossible to change the meaning of a sentence using different tones, which is obviously wrong. Sarcasm being the most glaring example.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote... 


Take for example the highlighted option: Then we fight.

It's aggressive and to the point. That's good. We know the tone of what's being said.

The actual response is We'll take the bastards down with us.

So, what is often proposed is that when the option is highlighted, after a few seconds the actual response is shown at the very top of the screen. Or the bottom. Either as a surtitle or a subtitle. It doesn't matter.

Then, players that want to know what they're saying know both the tone and the actual response.

So I think that solves the issue of unexpected outcomes.

Undermining presentation? I think that's relatively minor compared to undermining peoples' control of the PC. I think that can be solved by re-reading the paraphrase before selecting, where that would be what's fresh in the player's mind and wouldn't present an issue of "I just heard what I read!"

But that might not work, and it's not something I'd need to do. Admittedly, I wouldn't be bothered by reading the full line and hearing it, mainly because I read to myself instead of aloud.

Now, this isn't to say presentation isn't important. But I think player control should be prioritized over presentation.

I would know what's being said, along with how it's being said, and not feel like my PC is not my own.

But this part of your post isn't something I'm truly fit to argue so I shan't continue, for fear of saying things that are either irrelevant, strawmen, or just idiotic and absurd.

As for the UI, well, I don't know what's meant by "it takes up a lot of UI space".

The presentation issue is bigger than one might think. First they have to fit it into the UI. In your screenshot example, Then we fight. becomes We'll take the bastards down with us., which takes up almost three times as much screen real estate. With only three dialogue options that are all on the extreme short end of things we're already looking at a significant size increase to fit an extra hundred characters or so onto that element of the UI. Start accounting for much longer lines (80 - 100 characters each instead of 40 - 50) and up to five or six dialogue options instead of three and it becomes impractical to just print the full line for every option in the UI. 

Then we get into ideas like your suggestion, the full line showing up as a subtitle when you hover over the option for a few seconds. It's not a terrible idea or anything; I won't cry myself to sleep over it if they implement it in DA3. But what is it aspiring to be, really? Either the paraphrase/icon are sufficient and the full line is superfluous, or seeing the full line becomes necessary for everyone who cares about dialogue because the paraphrase department used it as a crutch instead of doing their job right, in which case it is effectively a kind of expanding menu that due to the hovering requirement takes far too long to navigate. 

In any case my real problem with a full line system is that it works best when the dialogue is least interesting. In shorter, more pedestrian conversations It is comparable to paraphrase+icon, but it becomes less useful and can actually get in the way as conversations become more dynamic. It is not just the silent PC but also the full line dialogue system that leads us to things like the landsmeet, in which the warden has about as many lines as one of the bit-player banns in the rafters, or the heroic speech before the final battle which starred Alistair rallying the troops instead of the PC. 

Modifié par Restraint, 03 avril 2012 - 07:25 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
but that they want me not to experience a different narrative.

Could you rephrase, because I'm fairly certain that this is exactly what I said, and that it makes no difference.

By strict logical structure;

"Want you to experience" == "Not-want you to not-experience"

You've parsed that incorrectly.

If I want you to have an apple, then I have a preference regarding your possesion of an apple, and my preference is that you have one.

If I don't want you to have an apple, then I might have a preference regarding your possession of an apple, but that preference (if it exists) is not that you have one.

If I want you not to have an apple, then I have a preference regarding your possession of an apple, and my preference is that you not have one.

[Adanu]

Corto81 wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.
 

LOL

Skyrim  would like to have 10 million+ words with you

Skyrim sucks for your example. I don't consider it an RPG. It's a sandbox in a fantasy setting.

YOU don't consider it an RPG.

99% of people do. Because it IS an RPG.

The term RPG is so misinterpreted and inaccurately represented in todays culture and games that I tend to disagree with most on the subject. The definition of it can be broadly interpreted is the good and bad of it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Adanu wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.

LOL

Skyrim  would like to have 10 million+ words with you

Skyrim sucks for your example. I don't consider it an RPG. It's a sandbox in a fantasy setting.

You denigrated my position on the grounds that it rests on an idiosyncratic defintion of RPG, and then defended yourself by appealing to your own idiosyncratic definition of RPG.

Thanks for doing my work for me.

Morroian wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would like to point out that you're saying that modern roleplaying games are no longer about roleplaying.  I want that to be clear.

So you refuse to accept that there are degrees of role playing?

I refuse to accept that anything other than roleplaying takes precedence over roleplaying in a roleplaying game.

slashthedragon wrote...

Yes, I wish the higher ups posting here would tell us WHY they are so against having the full line displayed?  

David Gaider has, can't remember what thread though.

My recollection is that he hasn't.  He asserted that he won't display the full line, and as such that the issue wasn't worth discussing.

He did make some remarks later suggesting that the way he would like to write with a voiced PC would preclude full lines as there would be back and forth exchanges.

I think unprompted back and forth exchanges (autodialogue) is a negative feature in and of itself.

The explanation was to do with not being able to fit in the dialogue and somehow convey the full nuance of how it was being said.

I remember the nuance angle, as well, but that doesn't make any sense.  Either they think they've alreadty solved the nuance problem with the tone icons, or they don't think the nuance problem is big enough to warrant fixing.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 avril 2012 - 06:56 .

[Mr Fixit]

If only Sylvius responded to a single claim of mine... and not to arbitrarily cherrypicked quasi-quotes.

I'm outta here.

[Rorschachinstein]

dat quote pyramid.

[Yrkoon]

Adanu wrote...

Skyrim sucks for your example. I don't consider it an RPG. It's a sandbox in a fantasy setting.

Of course it's an RPG.  In fact, it's an RPG  that uses one of the oldest, most time honored  RPG formulas to ever grace  computer gaming.

It also came out  just a few months ago and  managed to outsell every Bioware RPG ever made.  So... um... so  much for your silly claim about "modern RPGs" and what "direction"   your imagination thinks they're headed.

Adanu wrote...


The term RPG is so misinterpreted and inaccurately represented in todays culture

Apology accepted.  In the future, please familiarize yourself with the definitions of the terms you're tossing around.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 avril 2012 - 09:30 .

[Xewaka]

slashthedragon wrote...
Yes, I wish the higher ups posting here would tell us WHY they are so against having the full line displayed?  I can't see any negative to it, unless the writers intend for the PC to ramble on and on after just one choice, thus making it impossible to fit the line on the screen (and I HATE auto dialogue).
If they could explain the why, I certainly would be willing to listen, especially if their reason is sound.  I know I won't buy a DA: 3 with paraphrasing, I hated that in DA:2.

The closest thing they have given to an explanation is that the full line can cause issues with subvocalization, which is apparently a problem for Mike Laidlaw, among others. There's also the statement David Gaider made regarding the fact that they will not go back to the full line.
Granted, they also admit paraphrases can (and have) caused issues by themselves, so they're willing to re-evaluate their stance on them.

Modifié par Xewaka, 03 avril 2012 - 11:46 .

[Bleachrude]

YohkoOhno wrote...


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).

Basically, can you have a strong narrative WITHOUT defining in some way the protoganist?

Dont think so personally...more importantly, people don't seem willing to play with characters who exist in-between the strong narrative (Geralt and Adam Jense) and weak narrative (skyrim's hero the Dragonborn)

[VampOrchid]

I think as long as the DA games keep coming and don't end to give birth to a DA MMORPG I'll be ok. I would be crushed to know that DA as an rpg ends so the a DA mmorpg could be released. Not saying that's going to happen. But it's something that could give me nightmares.

For me RPG and MMORPG are two different things.

So as long as we stay on this path...or if eventually they have both, then I should be ok lol

[jbrand2002uk]

Corto81 wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.
 

LOL

Skyrim  would like to have 10 million+ words with you

Skyrim sucks for your example. I don't consider it an RPG. It's a sandbox in a fantasy setting.

YOU don't consider it an RPG.

99% of people do. Because it IS an RPG.

If we follow your last claim to its logical conclusion the your also saying that GTA4 is an RPG since you can do the missions in any order you desire and do lots of random stuff in between.

[Xewaka]

Bleachrude wrote...
Basically, can you have a strong narrative WITHOUT defining in some way the protoganist?
Dont think so personally...more importantly, people don't seem willing to play with characters who exist in-between the strong narrative (Geralt and Adam Jense) and weak narrative (skyrim's hero the Dragonborn)

Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas (The ones by Chris Avellone) disagree.

[Yrkoon]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.
 

LOL

Skyrim  would like to have 10 million+ words with you

Skyrim sucks for your example. I don't consider it an RPG. It's a sandbox in a fantasy setting.

YOU don't consider it an RPG.

99% of people do. Because it IS an RPG.

If we follow your last claim to its logical conclusion the your also saying that GTA4 is an RPG since you can do the missions in any order you desire and do lots of random stuff in between.

No.    Like any RPG, Skyrim has a leveling system.

[LinksOcarina]

Corto81 wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.
 

LOL

Skyrim  would like to have 10 million+ words with you

Skyrim sucks for your example. I don't consider it an RPG. It's a sandbox in a fantasy setting.

YOU don't consider it an RPG.

99% of people do. Because it IS an RPG.

Oh it is an RPG.

It's just a rather overrated dungeon crawler in the end.

[Korusus]

Yrkoon wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Sylvius just doesn't want to accept that modern RPG games are about narrative and story and less about full control of the roleplaying experience.
 

LOL

Skyrim  would like to have 10 million+ words with you

Skyrim sucks for your example. I don't consider it an RPG. It's a sandbox in a fantasy setting.

YOU don't consider it an RPG.

99% of people do. Because it IS an RPG.

If we follow your last claim to its logical conclusion the your also saying that GTA4 is an RPG since you can do the missions in any order you desire and do lots of random stuff in between.

No.    Like any RPG, Skyrim has a leveling system.

Indeed, Skyrim is a much simplified over time version of the same levelling system that The Elder Scrolls series has always had, skills improve as you use them.  What Skyrim did was get rid of stats like STR, INT etc.  But it added perks to the system which are basically stripped directly from Fallout.  And since TES is an older game in the tradition of first-person cRPGs that dominated the early 90s of cRPGs, arguing that is isn't an RPG is kind of odd since it pre-dates the isometric Infinity engine games...

Dragon Age and The Elder Scrolls are both RPGs, and they're both being simplified and mainstreamed over time.  The question is whether integrity is being maintained.  I would argue that Skyrim adds more than it takes away, and Dragon Age 2 took away far more than it added.

[FedericoV]

Bleachrude wrote...


Basically, can you have a strong narrative WITHOUT defining in some way the protoganist?

The true protagonist of a fantasy narrative is the setting, imho. That's why DA:O's story is stronger than DA2 even if the Warden is less defined than Hawke in most ways (considering the Origin feature).

Beside, fantasy literature has found many storytelling tricks to avoid the idea of a defined protagonist (like multiple PoVs). Maybe it's not possible in a videogame, due to budget constraints and I understand that many RPGers would be put off by the idea of playing a cast of charachters instead of a single one. But it would be interesting to see an experiment in that vein (maybe in DLC format).

Modifié par FedericoV, 03 avril 2012 - 03:50 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
but that they want me not to experience a different narrative.

Could you rephrase, because I'm fairly certain that this is exactly what I said, and that it makes no difference.

By strict logical structure;

"Want you to experience" == "Not-want you to not-experience"

You've parsed that incorrectly.

If I want you to have an apple, then I have a preference regarding your possesion of an apple, and my preference is that you have one.

If I don't want you to have an apple, then I might have a preference regarding your possession of an apple, but that preference (if it exists) is not that you have one.

If I want you not to have an apple, then I have a preference regarding your possession of an apple, and my preference is that you not have one.

Did you see the edit I made last night?

[Adanu]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You denigrated my position on the grounds that it rests on an idiosyncratic defintion of RPG, and then defended yourself by appealing to your own idiosyncratic definition of RPG.

That isn't what I just did, but that is what you've been doing for years, hence why I don't debate with you.

[JJDrakken]

I will say this, if/when you announce Dragon Age 3, it ends "REQUIRING" Origins, even on a hard copy. I will be fully 100% done with your SPRPGs. I didn't get ME3 because of it(From what I've seen & read, that's a ****storm I avoided).

Lets try not to force Origins down my throat with DA3.


JJ

[Maria Caliban]

FedericoV wrote...

The true protagonist of a fantasy narrative is the setting, imho.

This is the reason why the fantasy genre is brimming with bad stories and the science fiction genre is dying out.

Settings are awesome. They are in no way a replacement for strong plot and characters. The protagonist is the protagonist, not the author's carefully crafted dragon language.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 03 avril 2012 - 05:39 .

[AkiKishi]

FedericoV wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...


Basically, can you have a strong narrative WITHOUT defining in some way the protoganist?

The true protagonist of a fantasy narrative is the setting, imho. That's why DA:O's story is stronger than DA2 even if the Warden is less defined than Hawke in most ways (considering the Origin feature).

Beside, fantasy literature has found many storytelling tricks to avoid the idea of a defined protagonist (like multiple PoVs). Maybe it's not possible in a videogame, due to budget constraints and I understand that many RPGers would be put off by the idea of playing a cast of charachters instead of a single one. But it would be interesting to see an experiment in that vein (maybe in DLC format).

It's been done,and often. Not suprisingly by the Japanese.Radiant Dawn would be one of the more recent examples.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 avril 2012 - 05:37 .