485 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
The PC was deliberately made generic for flexibility as we do not know what and how people play their PC. Defining the PC and railroading the story is not the only answer for roleplaying. We see many sandbox games ( RPG or non-RPG ) strive on player free will on shaping their own story like TES. 

Mental fantasy isn't in-game content. You don't need anything for an "imagination experience". You can close your eyes, turn up some music, and go for it. You're restrained by nothing.

Games aren't about imagination, any more than movies are about people "imagining" what the character sound like (in the silent movie days).

Not to mention that you're projecting. Plenty of people play TES games not for an RPG experience, but for the fredom. It's exactly the same reason they play GTA games. Making about evidence for what you think an RPG should be is missing the point of how variable preferences are.

Others like strategy games features custom campaign with editors like Sid Meir's civilization, Heroes of Might and Magic, Romance of Three Kingdoms etc... Making your own story and live through your story is part of the theme commonly emphasized in D&D RPGs. It's also the foundation of TES ever since Arena.

If we're going down the obsession on this forum that video games have to be like pen-and-paper games, then you're going to have to bite the bullet on this: RPGs are social experiences. Yeah, sure, you make things up. But you make things up with people.

Single player RPGs don't have the same kind of social dimension. So things like fixed characters (in the party NPC sense) dialogue, etc. are the things which set up that aspect of the experience.

The main character of the story has psychological depth created by the players. The story and game mechanics are  tools to provide such character

My pen can have "psychological depth" if I anthromorphosize it. That you happen to think a game is about building blocks for your imagination is great. But that's nothing more than your personal view about what entertainment should be.

They are not the main driving force even if they can be the main force. We see many players do not care for predetermined objective as long as the game provide necessary tools for them.  Simulation game like The Sims, FPS, Action games and Strategy games benefit from this. Pen and Paper and D&D lay their foundation base on this too. Modern day Action RPG? I don't know. It's unknown concept to me where the boundary between roleplaying and controling a character becomes blur.

That's called "having fun".

I don't like Madden 2008 because I relate to Ray Lewis. I don't like the Total War series because I relate to the mooks. And Counter-Strike was fun not because I related to my toon.

Players care about fun gameplay. They care about their games being games. Stories are great fun to interact with, as long as they're interactive.

What makes a Bioware game fun - story wise - is how it works like a dramatic social simulation. KoTOR was a lot of fun - for a lot of people - because it was like being part of a Star Wars movie. But it wasn't you watching the movie. You were part of the game. You changed the game world. You interacted with characters.

All of that was the fun.

[the_one_54321]

You can't tell other people what aspects of games they are and aren't "allowed" to enjoy.

If you could, we'd have assimilated all the "new fans" a long time ago.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

[quote]In Exile wrote...
Mental fantasy isn't in-game content.[/quote]
Fantasy is never about  in-game content. 

[quote]In Exile wrote...
You don't need anything for an "imagination experience". You can close your eyes, turn up some music, and go for it. You're restrained by nothing.[/quote]
I don't need to follow fix character and fix story in video games either. I can watch movie and read novel. Since both movie and novel are restrained by everything.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
Games aren't about imagination, any more than movies are about people "imagining" what the character sound like (in the silent movie days).[/quote]
Games are designed to be imaginative in same manner movies are created and stories are written. The only difference is interactivity and medium.   

[quote]In Exile wrote...
Not to mention that you're projecting. Plenty of people play TES games not for an RPG experience, but for the fredom. It's exactly the same reason they play GTA games.[/quote]
Freedom of choice that cannot be provided by fix character and/or linear story driven games.

[quote]In Exile wrote...
Making about evidence for what you think an RPG should be is missing the point of how variable preferences are.[/quote]
Making example is valid form of agument. You can agree or you can disagree.
 

[quote]In Exile wrote...




[quote]Others like strategy games features custom campaign with editors like Sid Meir's civilization, Heroes of Might and Magic, Romance of Three Kingdoms etc... Making your own story and live through your story is part of the theme commonly emphasized in D&D RPGs. It's also the foundation of TES ever since Arena.[/quote]If we're going down the obsession on this forum that video games have to be like pen-and-paper games, then you're going to have to bite the bullet on this: RPGs are social experiences. Yeah, sure, you make things up. But you make things up with people.

Single player RPGs don't have the same kind of social dimension. So things like fixed characters (in the party NPC sense) dialogue, etc. are the things which set up that aspect of the experience.[/quote]
And they're still the tool and game mechanics. Not the only driving force. They became the only driving force  in movie and novel. It's the player who move the story in interactive environment. Without the player,  fixed characters, NPCs, dialogue are just set up that never play. 



[quote]In Exile wrote...





[quote]The main character of the story has psychological depth created by the players. The story and game mechanics are  tools to provide such character [/quote]
My pen can have "psychological depth" if I anthromorphosize it. That you happen to think a game is about building blocks for your imagination is great. But that's nothing more than your personal view about what entertainment should be. [/quote]
Never said it's a fact. I would have submitted undisputed evidence fully tested and pier reviewed if I want to debate about fact. The thing is Maria post her opinion and so do I. Perhaps my examples are too extreme for you?


[quote]In Exile wrote...





[quote]They are not the main driving force even if they can be the main force. We see many players do not care for predetermined objective as long as the game provide necessary tools for them.  Simulation game like The Sims, FPS, Action games and Strategy games benefit from this. Pen and Paper and D&D lay their foundation base on this too. Modern day Action RPG? I don't know. It's unknown concept to me where the boundary between roleplaying and controling a character becomes blur.[/quote]

That's called "having fun".

I don't like Madden 2008 because I relate to Ray Lewis. I don't like the Total War series because I relate to the mooks. And Counter-Strike was fun not because I related to my toon.

Players care about fun gameplay. They care about their games being games. Stories are great fun to interact with, as long as they're interactive. [/quote]
And that's the whole point. Option is what make it's interactive.  option is what made Madden 2008 playable. Options are what Make Total War playable and replayable again and again.  Not movie or novel in front of game's screen. The more options you have the more viable interaction are presented to you. But options are useless without imagination. Because without imagination you have no idea how to use your options. You have no idea how to use your character or what the npcs and dialogue for or what your purpose is.  

[quote]In Exile wrote...
What makes a Bioware game fun - story wise - is how it works like a dramatic social simulation. KoTOR was a lot of fun - for a lot of people - because it was like being part of a Star Wars movie. But it wasn't you watching the movie. You were part of the game. You changed the game world. You interacted with characters.

All of that was the fun.

[/quote]
It would be, you watching the movie with play-fast forward-pause-Rewind buttons if you think those options are sufficient to make it interactive. That can be fun too.  But then again, I don't suppose it's fun for you to create something even if you are given the tools or features to do so. That doesn't mean everyone else are bound to have play-fast forward- pause-rewind buttons in their game just to have fun.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 mai 2012 - 06:15 .

[Realmzmaster]

Fun is subjective. What is fun for one person is not necessarily fun for another. A developer has to look at the overall audience and make an educated guess based on demographics collected what is fun for the average gamer of that group.
No developer is going to cater to the extremes unless the developer is aiming at a small niche market. A small niche market may be great for an independent developer. It is not going to support a division the size of Bioware or a company the size of EA.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 03 mai 2012 - 06:19 .

[Maria Caliban]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd say that DA:O didn't have a strong story because it gave the PC many options, and DA II didn't have a weaker story because it game the PC fewer options.

Then we may as well stop interacting with video games and just watch movies or read novels.

This is a false dilemma. There are more choices than totally generic PC or read a book.

In fact, the two examples I gave of stories that required non-generic PCs were both from video games.

BioWare games all have some level of PC restriction. You can't play a kossith in DA:O. You can't play an Orlesian or skip the part where you become a Grey Warden. RPGs like Planescape and Deus Ex have non-generic PCs and are both excellent games.

Even completely per-defined PCs like Geralt of Rivia don't take away from the Witcher being a game, because what makes a game different from a book or movie is that it's interactive.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd say that DA:O didn't have a strong story because it gave the PC many options, and DA II didn't have a weaker story because it game the PC fewer options.

Then we may as well stop interacting with video games and just watch movies or read novels.

This is a false dilemma. There are more choices than totally generic PC or read a book.

In fact, the two examples I gave of stories that required non-generic PCs were both from video games.

BioWare games all have some level of PC restriction. You can't play a kossith in DA:O. You can't play an Orlesian or skip the part where you become a Grey Warden. RPGs like Planescape and Deus Ex have non-generic PCs and are both excellent games.

Even completely per-defined PCs like Geralt of Rivia don't take away from the Witcher being a game, because what makes a game different from a book or movie is that it's interactive.

I'm not talking about choice as character only. I'm talking about the entire structure of storytelling. In what way we can influence the story in video games.   

Choices are not limited to PC only. Whether the PC is generic or not, is just one part of the equatation. Even if the PC is not generic, choice can be played through  plot branching, multiple endings, origins etc..  This is what games like TW2 and Alpha protocol  are using. Even Final fantasy use some variants in their story ( Corrrect me if I'm wrong because I don't play FF. Only heard it from FF players.  ). Like I said, to some people minor variants would be suffice. For others it require more than just picking A,B and C or color explosions. 

You argue fewer options would  make the story stronger. I argue if that the case then we better read novel and watch movie since there's no options at all in any novel and movie. The key word is option and interactivity. Fewer options mean less interactive storytelling. Less interactive mean less play and that's not what video game is about.  I went further going into sandbox's territory just to prove to you than story is secondary to most people.  ( I stress most people and not everyone just in case someone want to argue otherwise ) My observation is based on popular games like The Sims, TES and FPS.  

Your earlier post against generic PC and it's effectiveness in storytelling. So I dispute that using sandbox games as example where player have total freedom to play their character and story as they see fit.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 03 mai 2012 - 09:50 .

[AkiKishi]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I'm not talking about choice as character only. I'm talking about the entire structure of storytelling. In what way we can influence the story in video games.   

Choices are not limited to PC only. Whether the PC is generic or not, is just one part of the equatation. Even if the PC is not generic, choice can be played through  plot branching, multiple endings, origins etc..  This is what games like TW2 and Alpha protocol  are using. Even Final fantasy use some variants in their story ( Corrrect me if I'm wrong because I don't play FF. Only heard it from FF players.  ). Like I said, to some people minor variants would be suffice. For others it's more than just picking A,B and C or color explosions. 

You argue fewer options would  make the story stronger. I argue if that the case then we better read novel and watch movie since there's no options at all in any novel and movie. The key word is option and interactivity. Fewer options mean less interactive storytelling. Less interactive mean less play and that's not what video game is about.  I went further going into sandbox's territory just to prove to you than story is secondary to most people.  ( I stress most people and not everyone just in case someone want to argue otherwise ) My observation is based on popular games like The Sims, TES and FPS.  

Depends on which Final Fantasy, some do some don't.

Fewer options,in regard to the PC do make for a stronger story, or rather for a story that ties the PC to it. You can't have PST without TNO. You can't have Deus EX:HR without Adam Jensen.
Again, depends what you mean by interactivity. A JRPG is a mixture of non interactive movie scenes linked together by interactive gameplay. A CRPG is a series of semi interactive movie scenes linked together by gameplay. The advantage of a JRPG is because the script is known it has better drama and flow.


 curse you mini chocobo !

vs



TES/FO/SIMS you make your own story rather than follow a narrative, there is one there, but it makes up a very small part of the game overall 40 ish hours out of a 200+ hour to complete game.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 mai 2012 - 10:05 .

[Ghidorah14]

I agree with the OP.

I'd rather be a homebred hero of the lands than some shmuck who ran errands for everyone even when given the title of "champion of kirkwall."

At least in Awakening you become the Warden Commander, where you actually GET some perks and have some responsibilities.

What does the champion of kirkwall get to do that he/she couldnt do before? Talk to meredith and orsino. FANTASTIC.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Depends on which Final Fantasy, some do some don't.

Thank you, BobSmith101

BobSmith101 wrote...
Fewer options,in regard to the PC do make for a stronger story, or rather for a story that ties the PC to it. You can't have PST without TNO. You can't have Deus EX:HR without Adam Jensen.

I'm skeptic about this. I have yet to see how less option in video games makes it appealing.  I have seen many story based games flop. Jurassic Park the Movie is one of them. 

Perhaps one day I do need to check out PST and Deus EX:HR to see how they work.

BobSmith101 wrote...
Again, depends what you mean by interactivity. A JRPG is a mixture of non interactive movie scenes linked together by interactive gameplay.

JRPG was criticized by it's own fans for "watch more play less"

BobSmith101 wrote...
A CRPG is a series of semi interactive movie scenes linked together by gameplay. The advantage of a JRPG is because the script is known it has better drama and flow.

I can't comment. I didn't play much cinematic crpg to make a fair assessment.

BobSmith101 wrote...

 curse you mini chocobo !

vs

I'll check it later. My internet connection is awfully slow at the moment. But thanks.

BobSmith101 wrote...
TES/FO/SIMS you make your own story rather than follow a narrative, there is one there, but it makes up a very small part of the game overall 40 ish hours out of a 200+ hour to complete game.

You're right. It slipped my mind, when it's was what I actually want to write about.

[nightscrawl]

John Epler wrote...

Sure, I never wanted to be a Warden, but aside from cutting to the end of the game with an epilogue slide of 'And then everyone died because you, sir, are a jerk', there weren't a lot of places that could've gone without an absolutely obscene amount of additional zots, which would've then been cut from elsewhere.

Sorry, I keep seeing this and I have no idea what the hell it is. What are ZOTS?! Well it seems from that statement that zots are development resources? Where did the term come from? o_O

Google gave me nothing except candy and other nonsense.

[AkiKishi]

nightscrawl wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Sure, I never wanted to be a Warden, but aside from cutting to the end of the game with an epilogue slide of 'And then everyone died because you, sir, are a jerk', there weren't a lot of places that could've gone without an absolutely obscene amount of additional zots, which would've then been cut from elsewhere.

Sorry, I keep seeing this and I have no idea what the hell it is. What are ZOTS?! Well it seems from that statement that zots are development resources? Where did the term come from? o_O

Google gave me nothing except candy and other nonsense.

Slang term for money. Think it may be derived from a game like Gil.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 mai 2012 - 12:21 .

[Pasquale1234]

nightscrawl wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Sure, I never wanted to be a Warden, but aside from cutting to the end of the game with an epilogue slide of 'And then everyone died because you, sir, are a jerk', there weren't a lot of places that could've gone without an absolutely obscene amount of additional zots, which would've then been cut from elsewhere.

Sorry, I keep seeing this and I have no idea what the hell it is. What are ZOTS?! Well it seems from that statement that zots are development resources? Where did the term come from? o_O

Google gave me nothing except candy and other nonsense.

It could include money, time, people with various skill sets and tools - basically any resource needed to produce a game and/or game content.

Just think of zots as being overall development resources, and it will probably make sense.

[Maria Caliban]

nightscrawl wrote...

Sorry, I keep seeing this and I have no idea what the hell it is. What are ZOTS?! Well it seems from that statement that zots are development resources? Where did the term come from? o_O

Google gave me nothing except candy and other nonsense.

Yes, zots are development resources.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

This is a false dilemma. There are more choices than totally generic PC or read a book.

In fact, the two examples I gave of stories that required non-generic PCs were both from video games.

BioWare games all have some level of PC restriction. You can't play a kossith in DA:O. You can't play an Orlesian or skip the part where you become a Grey Warden. RPGs like Planescape and Deus Ex have non-generic PCs and are both excellent games.

Even completely per-defined PCs like Geralt of Rivia don't take away from the Witcher being a game, because what makes a game different from a book or movie is that it's interactive.

The only restrictions that matter are restrictions on personality.

Torment only lets you play as TNO, but what sort of person the nameless one is is left entirely to the player.  That's the difference.

DAO had only limited restrictions on personality.  On some level, the PC needed to accept that he was a Grey Warden.  But DA2's restrictions were far more severe.  The player had far less freedom to determine Hawke's personality (partly because Hawke was voiced), and had far less control even within the available range (because of the obfuscatory paraphrases).  And even beyond the voice+paraphrase system, DA2 tended to assume Hawke held strong opinions on just about every issue, and assumed that some sets of opinions were impossible (so holding one position earlier would make another later position unavailable).  DA2 also required Hawke have some measure of concern for his mother's welfare, that Hawke accept his fate to live in Kirkwall even after he became a man of means, and that Hawke have some interest in the affairs of Kirkwall.

DAO places one big limit on the Warden's personality.  DA2 does this even more, plus adds dozens of smaller restrictions and does so unpredictably.  Hawke can't like slavers.  Hawke can't be indifferent to the Qunari.  Hawke can't distrust Meredith.  Hawke can't lie to Flemeth.

There are far too many restrictions on Hawke's personality.  What the PC should be when handed to us is a blank slate.  As many aspects of the PC's personality as possible should be left to the player to determine.

DA2, though, seems to have been designed without paying this any consideration at all.  The player is routinely given only a very narow range of possible feelings for Hawke, or a small number of very rigidly defined opinions from which to choose.  This is completely unacceptable.

DA3 needs a blank slate PC.

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The only restrictions that matter are restrictions on personality.

Torment only lets you play as TNO, but what sort of person the nameless one is is left entirely to the player.  That's the difference.

DAO had only limited restrictions on personality.  On some level, the PC needed to accept that he was a Grey Warden.  But DA2's restrictions were far more severe.  The player had far less freedom to determine Hawke's personality (partly because Hawke was voiced), and had far less control even within the available range (because of the obfuscatory paraphrases).  And even beyond the voice+paraphrase system, DA2 tended to assume Hawke held strong opinions on just about every issue, and assumed that some sets of opinions were impossible (so holding one position earlier would make another later position unavailable).  DA2 also required Hawke have some measure of concern for his mother's welfare, that Hawke accept his fate to live in Kirkwall even after he became a man of means, and that Hawke have some interest in the affairs of Kirkwall.

DAO places one big limit on the Warden's personality.  DA2 does this even more, plus adds dozens of smaller restrictions and does so unpredictably.  Hawke can't like slavers.  Hawke can't be indifferent to the Qunari.  Hawke can't distrust Meredith.  Hawke can't lie to Flemeth.

There are far too many restrictions on Hawke's personality.  What the PC should be when handed to us is a blank slate.  As many aspects of the PC's personality as possible should be left to the player to determine.

DA2, though, seems to have been designed without paying this any consideration at all.  The player is routinely given only a very narow range of possible feelings for Hawke, or a small number of very rigidly defined opinions from which to choose.  This is completely unacceptable.

DA3 needs a blank slate PC.

Not really the case. The blanks are filled in as you play the game. The amnesia shtick is a dead give away. Same with KOTOR.

Can't be done in a cinematic game

DA should go the TW2/Deus EX:HR route, but with a fixed PC for each gender, since there is no way Bioware would get away with dropping that. Both of those games were superior to DA2 in part because you don't have any inclination to fight against the pre-generated nature of the characters.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Not really the case. The blanks are filled in as you play the game. The amnesia shtick is a dead give away.

TNO's background is filled in.  His personality is left up to the player.

Same with KOTOR.

And the same is true with KotOR.  Moreover, you don't even have the amnesia to worry about, since the PC has a full background in his mind at the start (and the player gets to decide what that is).  Everything about the PC's personality in KotOR is left up to the player.

That's the great thing about KotOR.  The game actually tells a coherent story without requiring that the PC be anyone in particular in the present.  Who the PC was in the past matters, but there's a credible explanation offered as to why that past personality isn't relevant to the current personality.

Can't be done in a cinematic game

Then they shouldn't make a cinematic game.

DA should go the TW2/Deus EX:HR route, but with a fixed PC for each gender, since there is no way Bioware would get away with dropping that. Both of those games were superior to DA2 in part because you don't have any inclination to fight against the pre-generated nature of the characters.

That runs the risk of offering a PC the player isn't interested in playing.  That makes the problem worse, not better.

[the_one_54321]

I'm fine with mostly freedom and some cinematic. I want to view some of the drama on the screen and not 100% in my head.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not conceding that a cinematic game prevents a blank slate PC. But I take Bob Smith's assertion that it does as an argument against a cinematic game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 mai 2012 - 05:31 .

[AkiKishi]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then they shouldn't make a cinematic game.

[quote]

They are, that's not going to change no matter how much you type. That ship has most definately sailed.
I'd rather direct them in the direction of cinematic games I've enjoyed playing, than bemoaning the fact they no longer make a particular type of game.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 mai 2012 - 05:34 .

[the_one_54321]

I'm going to reference back to a very old thread about the merging of cinematic presentation and the typical gameplay mechanics. I think that maintaining fluid consistency between each "mode" of presentation could go a long way toward keeping cinematic and freedom available.

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I'm going to reference back to a very old thread about the merging of cinematic presentation and the typical gameplay mechanics. I think that maintaining fluid consistency between each "mode" of presentation could go a long way toward keeping cinematic and freedom available.

What do you mean by freedom ? Deus Ex:HR gives you more freedom in how you approach things than DA2 , but has a fixed character in Adam Jensen. It also gives you better dramatics and story because it has a fixed character called Adam Jensen.
Xenoblade has more freedom than DA2 despite being a game that is mostly driven by non interactive cutscenes,but it's also a very different kind of freedom.

Amnesia is the only way you can really combine the two, but then you end up playing a "fake" character and since it's a very well know cliche now, you now that from the start.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 mai 2012 - 05:40 .

[the_one_54321]

I don't know exactly how much freedom Deus Ex: HR offered. I know that the level of freedom between DA:O and DAII was pretty different.

[Maria Caliban]

The different gameplay solutions available in DX:HR aren't compatible with party-based games.

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I don't know exactly how much freedom Deus Ex: HR offered. I know that the level of freedom between DA:O and DAII was pretty different.

DX:HR gives you almost total freedom in the way you do things. Just not in how it gets done.Because Adam is Adam you don't get that expecting to do it one way and then doing it another, like you do in DA2.

There are a couple of occasions in DA:O where the approach hurts the game. The Landsmeet being a particular WTF moment. The same is true in KOA (another silent protagonist) when an NPC delivers your speech, obviously because you can't.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 mai 2012 - 05:59 .

[the_one_54321]

Ok, but Adam's personality is always Adam, is it not? I can't really change that?