942 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

Nighteye2 wrote...

I'm talking about control here, not ownership.

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.

Sure seems like you were talking about ownership to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

I'm talking about control here, not ownership.

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.

Sure seems like you were talking about ownership to me.

I would argue that the voice removed ownership, and the paraphrase removes control.

Ideally I would like both control and ownership back, but at the very least we need control.

The paraphrase needs to be better.  The paraphrase needs to be vastly better.

[the_one_54321]

What exactly is ownership of a character?

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

What exactly is ownership of a character?

The feeling that the character belongs to you, as opposed to someone else.

[LobselVith8]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

Earlier in this thread, Gaider already said the Deus Ex style of showing the actual response for the voiced protagonist won't be done. I honestly don't see why, since it would solve a plethora of problems that people have with their protagonists saying something that doesn't even mirror the intent of what they were saying. It creates a divide between the protagonist, and the player - it makes some of us feel like Hawke isn't our character, but Bioware's character. And I really have no interest in purchasing a game that doesn't entertain me, or leaves me frustrated by asking me to provide choices in shaping the protagonist, and then refusing to acknowledge my choices.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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!"

I really don't understand that criticism at all: "I just heard what I read!" Is reading comprehension a bad thing these days? That leaves me vexed.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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 agree completely, Ethereal. What's the point in asking players to create their own protagonist, and then taking away that freedom and that choice?

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
What exactly is ownership of a character?

The feeling that the character belongs to you, as opposed to someone else.

So.... perception?

I'm not being sarcastic. Just that, once the character is voiced, you can't actually own it. You can't imagine. S/he behaves however the voice actor handled it. Like Sylvius said, the best you can hope for is control.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 04 avril 2012 - 04:39 .

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
What exactly is ownership of a character?

The feeling that the character belongs to you, as opposed to someone else.

So.... perception?

I'm not being sarcastic. Just that, once the character is voiced,
you can't actually own it. You can't imagine. S/he behaves however the
voice actor handled it. Like Sylvius said, the best you can hope for is
control.

Yup.

Edit: I disagree. I still feel like I own my Hawkes and my Shepards, voices and all. You might not be able to, but that's just it - the amount and circumstance of ownership varies from person to person. This is why I resent it when people (like the guy I quoted above whose name escapes me at the moment) tell me that I don't own a character when I certainly feel like I do. Telling me I'm not feeling something I feel seems ridiculous to me. I  understand that not everyone feels the way I do, but similarly, you should be able to understand that not everyone feels the same way you do.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 04 avril 2012 - 04:46 .

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I disagree. I still feel like I own my Hawkes and my Shepards, voices and all.

Voicing the character definitively removes your ability to determine a number of personality aspects of the character. With Shepard in particular it's easy to see the difference. You have options with Shepard's outlook, but he always behaves as he is written and acted. No matter what choices you make. Male Shepard is always male Shepard, whether Renegade or Paragon or one of the many schizophrenic sounding combinations of the two.

To me it's not a huge deal, but, as has been mentioned before where conversations have included Sylvius and myself, strict definition of words and phrases will not be ignored.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
(like the guy I quoted above whose name escapes me at the moment)

Nighteye. He's a very nice person.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 04 avril 2012 - 04:53 .

[the_one_54321]

LobselVith8 wrote...
What's the point in asking players to create their own protagonist, and then taking away that freedom and that choice?

Honestly, I have a growing suspicion that they have intended to gradually ween us off having any real ownership or control of the character. Obviously, they would never say that, even it was deliberate and planned. So, I'm not trying to throw wild eyed accusations. I'm only saying that the continuing trends have started to make me wonder just a little.

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
What's the point in asking players to create their own protagonist, and then taking away that freedom and that choice?

Honestly, I have a growing suspicion that they have intended to gradually ween us off having any real ownership or control of the character. Obviously, they would never say that, even it was deliberate and planned. So, I'm not trying to throw wild eyed accusations. I'm only saying that the continuing trends have started to make me wonder just a little.

If they can reduce it down to just having a character generator for appearence they will. I don't think anyone will take the JRPG fixed appearence yet, though Witcher2 does not appear to have suffered that badly because of it. Maybe in DA4..

[the_one_54321]

BobSmith101 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
What's the point in asking players to create their own protagonist, and then taking away that freedom and that choice?

Honestly, I have a growing suspicion that they have intended to gradually ween us off having any real ownership or control of the character. Obviously, they would never say that, even it was deliberate and planned. So, I'm not trying to throw wild eyed accusations. I'm only saying that the continuing trends have started to make me wonder just a little.

If they can reduce it down to just having a character generator for appearence they will. I don't think anyone will take the JRPG fixed appearence yet, though Witcher2 does not appear to have suffered that badly because of it. Maybe in DA4..

Every successive game has offered less ability to actually create a PC, and less ability to control that PC. There's a trade-off in the level of detail in the writing, but is that what we want from PC creation? I'm more than willing to accept this trade-off with regard to NPCs, and the world around the PC. But creating and controling the PC is something that has become all too uncommon in new games. I'd prefer not to see it gradually disapper from BioWare games.

[Fireblader70]

At this point, it's pretty clear that EA (as producers) are behind the strange goings-on with 'Dragon Age' and 'Mass Effect'. Whether it's to gain a larger market, capitalise on previous successes or rake in the cash for other projects... consumers are seen as cows to be milked by them, no matter what the individuals at Bioware think.

I respect those individuals and hope they continue with their hard work, but EA is just alienating the fanbases on a regular basis. They think that they are protected like Activision by large brands, but heck, the only reason Activision is at the top is because of the fluke known as 'Call of Duty'. A fluke that cannot hope to be repeated again - not for some time, anyway.

So, yeah, Bioware understands, but what they can actually do is hindered by the pressure of the large corporation that overlooks them.

[Nighteye2]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

I'm talking about control here, not ownership.

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.

Sure seems like you were talking about ownership to me.

Perception of ownership, not actual ownership itself - and that perception is influenced by the amount of control you have.

I guess I should try to be more clear and concise in my nuances, although I don't really know how...

[hoorayforicecream]

Nighteye2 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

I'm talking about control here, not ownership.

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.

Sure seems like you were talking about ownership to me.

Perception of ownership, not actual ownership itself - and that perception is influenced by the amount of control you have.

I guess I should try to be more clear and concise in my nuances, although I don't really know how...

You could start by simply stating that it's your opinion of ownership, rather than just how it is. For example, you could have said "but despite the freedom of choice I employ, I still feel like I'm choosing my version of Bioware's character, and not my character". By doing so, you're telling me that you feel this way. That's fine. That's legit.

The way you have it written is you telling me how I (should) feel, and I find that very self-centered. 

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 04 avril 2012 - 10:33 .

[Nighteye2]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
I'm talking about control here, not ownership.

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.

Sure seems like you were talking about ownership to me.

Perception of ownership, not actual ownership itself - and that perception is influenced by the amount of control you have.

I guess I should try to be more clear and concise in my nuances, although I don't really know how...

Please clearly explain the difference between ownership of a character and the perception of ownership of that character.

I'll try:
Ownship is mostly objective, whereas the perception of ownership is mostly subjective - independant of but with a correlation to actual ownership.

For example, take a rented house you'd lived in for 30 years. In that time, you may have developed the perception of ownership - the feeling that that house is your home. The actual ownship of the house, however remains with the company you rent it from.  That actual ownship does not change if your perceived ownership changes.

In case of DA, the only one able to claim true ownershiop of a character would be Bioware, owner of the IP. But that does not affect the perception of ownership each player has, which varies from player to player.

[Nighteye2]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
You could start by simply stating that it's your opinion of ownership, rather than just how it is. For example, you could have said "but despite the freedom of choice I employ, I still feel like I'm choosing my version of Bioware's character, and not my character". By doing so, you're telling me that you feel this way. That's fine. That's legit.

The way you have it written is you telling me how I (should) feel, and I find that very self-centered. 

That's not how I intended it at all. That particular line is more about the control than about the perception of ownership. "your version of Bioware's character" implies that you don't have full control over every action of your character, whereas "your character" implies that you do. At least, that's how I see it.

[TEWR]

Filament wrote...

It would still be better than what we have now, so I don't see how this is used to justify keeping it the way it is now, so I guess he has other reasons he keeps to himself.

I must be misunderstanding Gaider's counterargument. And I hope I am. Please tell me if I am. From how I understand it, he's asking "What if the tone or the action icon tells you what's said, and the full line doesn't?"

But people are asking that the full line be made visible if you hover over the toned paraphrase. That still tells them the tone of the full line.

Then he's saying that the full text for one option can't apply to a back and forth exchange. Why not give something at the end of the full text that says (cont.)? That way, they know that there's going to be some back and forth related to what they just said.

I agree that the DE method is very much better then what we have.

LobselVith8 wrote...


Earlier in this thread, Gaider already said the Deus Ex style of showing the actual response for the voiced protagonist won't be done. I honestly don't see why, since it would solve a plethora of problems that people have with their protagonists saying something that doesn't even mirror the intent of what they were saying. It creates a divide between the protagonist, and the player - it makes some of us feel like Hawke isn't our character, but Bioware's character. And I really have no interest in purchasing a game that doesn't entertain me, or leaves me frustrated by asking me to provide choices in shaping the protagonist, and then refusing to acknowledge my choices.

Exactly! I said the same thing on page 35!

I actually called Hawke Humpty Dumpty, A.K.A an egghead.

I really don't understand that criticism at all: "I just heard what I read!" Is reading comprehension a bad thing these days? That leaves me vexed.

I think the issue people have is merely that they don't want to read something -- be it aloud or subvocalized -- and then hear it again. Not because of a lack of comprehension or a distaste for it, but because of the repetitiveness of it.

Perhaps the line of thought is when a child is copying everything you say, repeating it back to you in the tone and everything and it gets annoying after a while.

But I think that subvocalizing it, without trying to say it in the tone used even if you know the tone that it's going to be said in, wouldn't really do any damage to it all.

I don't claim to speak for everyone, but that's merely my take on the issue.

I agree completely, Ethereal. What's the point in asking players to create their own protagonist, and then taking away that freedom and that choice?

None that profits a company in the long run. It kills replayability if you can't approach things differently and it's the same in the end.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 avril 2012 - 10:54 .