96 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Most roleplaying games assume at least some motives on the part of the PC.  Without knowing something about the character's motives, the quests cannot offer that character a reason to complete them.

DAO made one really big assumption about the PC's motives.  DAO assumed that the player had an interest - any interest - in carrying out the duties of a Grey Warden.  I didn't see this as a significant problem, as many aspects of the character's background that might have been the source of conflicting motives were swept away by the finality of how the origins were written, and the game didn't make any assumptions about why the PC cared about his Grey Warden duties.

This was a significant hurdle placed in the way of a functional character design, but there was just the one, and it wasn't insurmountable (and it was also made obvious fairly early in the game).

DA2, on the the other hand, made a great many assumptions about the PC's motives.  DA2 assumed the PC cared for his mother, for example.  But there were also many quest-specific assumptions.  DA2 assumed that any PC that helped Fenris also opposed slavery.  It also assumed that any PC in a rivalry position with Fenris didn't approve of his vendetta against Danarius.  And these are just the Fenris-specific examples.

DA2 was written assuming that nearly every decision a player might make on Hawke's behalf was made for a specific reason, and this severely restricted the player's freedom in designing his character.

This has, I would argue, nothing to do with whether Hawke was voiced.  I'm not complaining about that here.  This has to do with the design of quests making unnecessary assumptions about the PC.  Main quests obviously need to assume that the PC will do them, but they needn't assume why.  And optional quests shouldn't make any assumptions at all.  If Hawke rescues a fugitive from an angry mob, that does not mean that Hawke thinks the fugitive can be redeemed.  That does not mean that Hawke believes the law should be upheld regardless of the will of the people.

There is no way for the writers to know why the PC does anything at all, so the quests shouldn't be designed based on those reasons.

That's how we can get back to something resembling a blank slate PC.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 mai 2012 - 07:05 .

[Fast Jimmy]

In the same vein. the option to refuse a quest should also always be given. Granted, main quests can't be not done, but at least give us the opportunity to go into them kicking and screaming. And side quests shouldn't be just hanging out in the journal if I want to refuse them. There is no reason for my Hawke to want to help a former dwarven noble exile out of the goodness of their heart, for example.

I think the problem with much of the quests assumptions in DA2 (and other games, I don't want to necessarily call out DA2 alone) is a PURPOSE. Hawke had very little purpose. Starting out, it was gather money. Then, after that, it gets muddled. If Hawke is supposed to be talking to the Qunari and finding out why they are here, why would Hawke need motivation to do quests that have nothing to do with that task for money? On the assumption that we always need more money for better gear? That is a meta-gaming need, not a character one. Without a clear goal, Hawke falters with purpose.

In DAO, everything you did could be traced back to a purpose. This doesn't have to be a Big Bad... in fact, the first two Fallout games had a clear purpose starting out (saving your vault/village) but then they expanded out into a Big Bad as the story moved forward. Instead, Hawke muddles around until the "purpose" lands in lap, assigning meaning and function to actions without any sense or logic, other than we are told to do X to move on to Y.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 18 mai 2012 - 08:08 .

[Realmzmaster]

Actually in DA2 Hawke takes the task to eliminate the the Tal' Vashoth from Jaravis Tintop. It is all about money. Hawke is called the Vicount's office because the Arishok requests it. Hawke has gain some notoriety Yes, Hawke should have been given the chance to refuse.

The problem with DAO is that you have to gather all the forces. You have to save Arl Eamon which means you have to get the Sacred Ashes. You have no choice in just getting one or two armies and heading for Denerim to confront Loghain, because Arl Eamon must called the Landsmeet. You are not given the option to fail. You cannot look at Arl Eamon and say sorry the dwarves will not be with us in this endeavor because you failed to crown a king . In fact you are not given the option not to crown one. In DAO your motivation is given to you. The warden does not get to say no. In fact in all (as i recall)  of Bioware's games the motivation is given to the PC.

Sometimes the purpose does just literally fall into your lap. What is wrong with that? Some purposes are discovered along the journey.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 18 mai 2012 - 08:36 .

[maxernst]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In the same vein. the option to refuse a quest should also always be given. Granted, main quests can't be not done, but at least give us the opportunity to go into them kicking and screaming. And side quests shouldn't be just hanging out in the journal if I want to refuse them. There is no reason for my Hawke to want to help a former dwarven noble exile out of the goodness of their heart, for example.

I think the problem with much of the quests assumptions in DA2 (and other games, I don't want to necessarily call out DA2 alone) is a PURPOSE. Hawke had very little purpose. Starting out, it was gather money. Then, after that, it gets muddled. If Hawke is supposed to be talking to the Qunari and finding out why they are here, why would Hawke need motivation to do quests that have nothing to do with that task for money? On the assumption that we always need more money for better gear? That is a meta-gaming need, not a character one. Without a clear goal, Hawke falters with purpose.

In DAO, everything you did could be traced back to a purpose. This doesn't have to be a Big Bad... in fact, the first two Fallout games had a clear purpose starting out (saving your vault/village) but then they expanded out into a Big Bad as the story moved forward. Instead, Hawke muddles around until the "purpose" lands in lap, assigning meaning and function to actions without any sense or logic, other than we are told to do X to move on to Y.

I agree very much with this.  Act 1 was clear enough and I really expected the game to be about protecting his family and establishing them in Kirkwall.  Granted caring about his mother is an assumed purpose, but just like it was okay to have DA:O assume that you want to fight the blight in the fashion laid out for you, it would have been okay to have a family-centric DA2.  But by the middle of Act 2, the family is essentially gone and honestly, I couldn't see any compelling reason for Hawke to even stay in Kirkwall at that point.  After that point, Hawke just drifts around and waits for people to put him on errands.

Because there isn't a big bad in DA2, the narrative screams for Hawke to choose a purpose of his own, but the game doesn't allow you to do this in a coherent fashion.  In both the main conflicts of Act 2 and Act 3, Hawke performs quests at the request of both sides and his motivations for many of the quests are not very clear.   Ordinarily games that have a competing faction theme rather than a great evil threat allow (or sometimes force) you to choose sides. Some games allow you to declare neutrality, in which case you may simply be able to ignore the conflict (as in Skyrim), or you may be dragged into it but try to steer a middle course (as you can in the Witcher).  Now, that last approach may be what Hawke is doing until the very end of Act 3, but it's never spelled out and no one ever calls him on it.

[haroldhardluck]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
DA2 was written assuming that nearly every decision a player might make on Hawke's behalf was made for a specific reason, and this severely restricted the player's freedom in designing his character.

This is The Definition of role playing. Each decision that Hawke makes defines the character and his/her beliefs system. The only type of person who is as inconsistent as you want is an insame person. Normal people have a system of values that limits their decisions. Even D&D did not have a pure Chaotic class. A Chaotic character's decision were limited by whether the character was also Good, Neutral or Evil.

In DA2 the pattern of dialog options you chose has an effect on the dialog options that are available later on. So there are consequences to your choices which is realistic. That is what role playing is all about.

Harold

[Reznore57]

The thing is , i think the "blank state" doesn't really exist.Because you still has to fill the void your pc is with what the designer gives you.And they can't give us every nuance we want .It would be impossible even with x amount of time /money.
And yep the writers have to guess our response to x event and assume our mindset about it , and gives us key to show them in the game.If nothing is assumed in the world about your pc , then he has no "reflections " in the world.
I'm not saying DA2 was perfect on that level but they can't give us every nuances we want ,like the mother the game assume we cared about her and it's as fair as assuming the warden did care about the Blight.I couldn't say damn i really don't give a F*** about darkspawn and being a warden, I'm going to an Antivan brothel for the holiday.
So it can't be perfect , i'd say the more nuance the better , at least having our pc voicing a simple phrase to say "no , you're wrong ,i'm not doing this because of x " is nice .
We're playing with tools provided by others people so it just can't fit our every desire...

What i found a bit sad about DA2 is a lot of your pc personality was reflected by the voice tone choice; and as far as i fell in love with sarcastic Hawke , I felt it did lack nuance.
Alignments like neutral good , chaotic evil etc , are a bit old fashioned but still has merits i think .
There was a bit of that with companion , but you could be schyzophrenic and they all liked you

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

It seems like the alternatives to assuming a motivation would be providing a choice of motivation or not addressing the motivation at all. But if you're correct that there's "no way for the writer to know why" then it seems like providing a choice of a few possible motivations is still woefully insufficient.

Yes.  I would encourage not addressing the motivation at all.

You say it's not something that happened in DAO, but I remember specifically playing the Anvil choice and thinking, "None of these options really reflect my motivation for destroying the anvil." (the closest choice was something like, "the anvil is evil, it must be destroyed" or such, but I wanted to emphasize Branka's craziness) So that leaves not addressing it at all.

Remember, why the PC says he's doing something isn't necessarily the actual reason why he's doing something.  He could be trying to persuade others.  If the Warden wants to destroy the Anvil, then he destroys the Anvil.  If he says he it is evil, then he wants to say it is evil.  He doesn't necessarily believe it is evil.

But yes, I could see that being a problem.  I don't think I ever destroyed the Anvil - it seems like too valuable a tool to destroy.

What you describe is very similar to what I found in the DA2 quest Magistrate's Orders.  I was allowed to save the fugitive from the angry mob, but the only option I was given to explain why I was doing it was to express some faith that everyone could be redeemed or rehabilitated.  When in fact, the only reason I was saving him was because I had taken a job to save him, and the Hawke I was playing always kept his word.  He said he would rescue the fugitive, so he was going to rescue the fugutive.  He had a job to do.  He didn't care whether the fugitive was executed or set free.  That wasn't his concern.

Like the Anvil line you mention, the Magistrate's Orders quest assumed that Hawke cared at all about the NPCs involved.  If he didn't, there were no available dialogue options (as far as I could tell - as always, the paraprhases were less than informative).

Which seems limiting. I suspect in a videogame we have to accept that the writer "knows why" to some extent as a limitation of the medium, else the only development that take place be entirely in our heads.

I think we need to accept that inside our heads is the only place character development can ever happen.  Trying to make it otherwise only damages the opportunities for roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

haroldhardluck wrote...

This is The Definition of role playing. Each decision that Hawke makes defines the character and his/her beliefs system.

No.  The belief system should drive the decisions, not the other way around.  DA2 dies it backward.

Normal people have a system of values that limits their decisions.

Yes, but BioWare writers don't know what that system of values is for any given character I create, so thy cannot possibly write to acknowledge it.

As such, they shouldn't try.

In DA2 the pattern of dialog options you chose has an effect on the dialog options that are available later on.

Which would be fine if the reason I chose any given dialogue option matched the reason BioWare expected.  If it doesn't, then the conclusion they draw about my character's motives will be inaccurate, leaving me trapped in quests with no way out.

Reznore57 wrote...

The thing is , i think the "blank state" doesn't really exist.Because you still has to fill the void your pc is with what the designer gives you.And they can't give us every nuance we want .It would be impossible even with x amount of time /money.

I knew someone would say this.  Every time I raise the issue of roleplaying coherence, someone points out that it's impossible for any game to give us every imaginable option.

Of course.  But nor does the game need to assume one specific motivation for any option that is given.

You've missed the point.

If nothing is assumed in the world about your pc , then he has no "reflections " in the world.

I have no idea what that means.

What i found a bit sad about DA2 is a lot of your pc personality was reflected by the voice tone choice; and as far as i fell in love with sarcastic Hawke , I felt it did lack nuance.
Alignments like neutral good , chaotic evil etc , are a bit old fashioned but still has merits i think.

I would agree with this.  I routinely play characters D&D would describe as Lawful Neutral, but writers more and more seem to assume that I would never want to do that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think the problem with much of the quests assumptions in DA2 (and other games, I don't want to necessarily call out DA2 alone) is a PURPOSE. Hawke had very little purpose. Starting out, it was gather money. Then, after that, it gets muddled. If Hawke is supposed to be talking to the Qunari and finding out why they are here, why would Hawke need motivation to do quests that have nothing to do with that task for money? On the assumption that we always need more money for better gear? That is a meta-gaming need, not a character one. Without a clear goal, Hawke falters with purpose.

I like that DA2 doesn't give Hawke a clear goal.  I think that's a good feature.

But then each quest needs to stand alone.  Every quest needs either to be optional, or to give Hawke a compelling reason to complete it.

The player's desire to advance the plot is not sufficient.

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think the problem with much of the quests assumptions in DA2 (and other games, I don't want to necessarily call out DA2 alone) is a PURPOSE. Hawke had very little purpose. Starting out, it was gather money. Then, after that, it gets muddled. If Hawke is supposed to be talking to the Qunari and finding out why they are here, why would Hawke need motivation to do quests that have nothing to do with that task for money? On the assumption that we always need more money for better gear? That is a meta-gaming need, not a character one. Without a clear goal, Hawke falters with purpose.

I like that DA2 doesn't give Hawke a clear goal.  I think that's a good feature.

But then each quest needs to stand alone.  Every quest needs either to be optional, or to give Hawke a compelling reason to complete it.

The player's desire to advance the plot is not sufficient.

Absolutely.  There were several times during DA2 that I really felt that my Hawke was simply doing a quest because it was required.  If you have made a game design decision to force the player along a required path, there ought to be some overarching purpose to it.  DA2 is a peculiar game.  Usually, linear games that allow little player freedom have a sense of urgency that explains why the player is forced to follow that path.  Some games feel slightly odd because they give players freedom, despite the fact that there would seem to be great urgency (mass effect).  DA2 is odd in that though individual quests may feel urgent, in general, the lack of clear purpose would  fit better with a game which allows more freedom.

Modifié par maxernst, 18 mai 2012 - 10:09 .

[Massakkolia]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Reznore57 wrote...

The thing is , i think the "blank state" doesn't really exist.Because you still has to fill the void your pc is with what the designer gives you.And they can't give us every nuance we want .It would be impossible even with x amount of time /money.

I knew someone would say this.  Every time I raise the issue of roleplaying coherence, someone points out that it's impossible for any game to give us every imaginable option.

Of course.  But nor does the game need to assume one specific motivation for any option that is given.

I agree mostly with Sylvius on this one. As long as there's an outsider ( a game developer) who creates a frame, a blank slate character is indeed impossible. An open world game like Skyrim can offer a very broad scale choices that force very few motivations on a player character. Bioware games are more linear, they have lots of interaction with NPCs and a dynamic plot. That means some direction from the devs is needed in order to add meat to the storyline.

That doesn't mean that Bioware should dictate fundamental core values and motivations of our PCs. That just leads to a fixed protagonist. Stopping the Blight was a vague enough aim but the game should try to give us space to form our own kinds of family bonds and views on social issues such as slavery and qunari. DA2 made an attempt but it was often feeble. DAO wasn't perfect but I generally felt the game allowed me enough space to attach my own motivations to my PC. When a motivation or an emotional reaction isn't chosen by me but it's still expressed by the PC, it disconnects me from the game world.

The voice acting wasn't at fault as much as the auto-dialogue. In addition to auto-dialogue, there were also problems with communication. Sometimes NPCs seemed to assume my PC was motivated by reasons she most certainly was not. This problem emerged especially rivaling or befriending companions. Even if the reasons for rivalry were different, Anders would always assume you're anti-mage and the PC wouldn't really get a chance to clear that up. This made both my PC and the NPC in question seem very black-and-white.

The main quests in DA2 were also too specific in content considering you couldn't skip them. Shepherding Wolves is one of my pet peeves. The game doesn't offer many logical motivations for my Hawke to take that quest of escorting the Saarebas. Actually all interactions with sister Petrice felt being on autopilot.

[wsandista]

Assuming the motivations for a player-generated PC should not be attempted since it is impossible for writers to know every player-generated PC's motivations or personality. The problem with motivations DA2 is that Hawke isn't a player-generated PC, yet attempts to appear that way. Motivation being forced on the PC is just part of a having a pre-generated PC, which is why they should not have a pre-generated PC.

[Morroian]

 

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

You can argue of course in what way that would matter to the game but it matters to me. I want to see myself reflected in the character I play. If it opposes my way of thinking then for me it is no role playing. I want my PC to reflect my way of thinking and act on that.

You're describing self insertion/1st person role playing, DA2 is 3rd person role playing but its stil role playing. 

wsandista wrote...

Assuming the motivations for a player-generated PC should not be attempted since it is impossible for writers to know every player-generated PC's motivations or personality. The problem with motivations DA2 is that Hawke isn't a player-generated PC, yet attempts to appear that way.

The fact that you personally have difficulties with the 3rd person role playing that DA2 offers does not mean Hawke is a pre-generated character.

Modifié par Morroian, 18 mai 2012 - 11:34 .

[wsandista]

Morroian wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Assuming the motivations for a player-generated PC should not be attempted since it is impossible for writers to know every player-generated PC's motivations or personality. The problem with motivations DA2 is that Hawke isn't a player-generated PC, yet attempts to appear that way.

The fact that you personally have difficulties with the 3rd person role playing that DA2 offers does not mean Hawke is a pre-generated character.

The fact that Hawke had pre-made motivations does make Hawke a pre-generated character, the fact that all of Hawkes lines are auto-dialogue makes Hawke a pre-generated character, the fact that Hawke is always Hawke makes Hawke a pre-generated character.

[Morroian]

wsandista wrote...

The fact that Hawke had pre-made motivations does make Hawke a pre-generated character, the fact that all of Hawkes lines are auto-dialogue makes Hawke a pre-generated character, the fact that Hawke is always Hawke makes Hawke a pre-generated character.

All of Hawke's lines are not auto dialogue, nor are Hawke's motivaitons pre made. I've managed to create 5 quite different Hawkes all with different motivations. I'll agree that DA2 is more limited than DAO in the options it gives the player but there are still options.

Modifié par Morroian, 18 mai 2012 - 11:41 .

[wsandista]

Morroian wrote...

All of Hawke's lines are not auto dialogue,

Which lines did you explicitly pick? If you can't choose exactly what the PC says, than it is auto-dialogue.

nor are Hawke's motivaitons pre made.

Yes they are, Act 1: get rich for protection, not up to the Player, Act 2: save the city and investigate murders, not up to the player, Act 3: get involved in Mage Templar conflict, not uo to the player

I've managed to create 5 quite different Hawkes all with different motivations.

But they have all been Hawke. With the Warden,the Bhaalspawn, or the Hero of Neverwinter, they all can be different people, with Hawke there is only Hawke.

[Crowlover]

I'm sort of torn on this issue.

On one hand I totally hear what your saying forced motivations in DA2 (the Fenris and assumed anti-slavery attitude or the Shepherding Wolves quest both being great examples).

On the other hand leaving the character's motivations relatively nebulous and entirely for the player to determine doesn't exactly sit well with me either. One of biggest issues with Skyrim and character motivation is that everything feels like it is happening in a vacuum. Sure I can say the only reason my thief is going to help the Imperial Legion out is because their victory will ultimately mean the Thieves Guild has more control in the major cities, but the game is never really going to reflect that motivation or any other for that matter.

[Morroian]

wsandista wrote...

Which lines did you explicitly pick? If you can't choose exactly what the PC says, than it is auto-dialogue.
.

 
You do get choices just like in DAO you get choices.

wsandista wrote...

Yes they are, Act 1: get rich for protection, not up to the Player, Act 2: save the city and investigate murders, not up to the player, Act 3: get involved in Mage Templar conflict, not uo to the player

  
Those are actions not motivations.

wsandista wrote...

But they have all been Hawke. With the Warden,the Bhaalspawn, or the Hero of Neverwinter, they all can be different people, with Hawke there is only Hawke.

My Hawkes are all different people as much as my  Wardens were. You're being presumptious if you're trying to tell me otherwise. I get that the game didn't work for you as a role playing experience but you're trying to make out like its something universal when it clearly isn't. Is it more limited in its role playing choice than DAO or BG? I've already said it is, but all rpgs are limited to a degree, its a matter of degrees not either/or. Plus there's the fact that the voicing the player character makes the game more explicitly a 3rd person role playing experience rather than the 1st person one you obviously want.

[wsandista]

Morroian wrote...
You do get choices just like in DAO you get choices.

DAO had explicit choices where what the player selected was exactly what the PC is recorded as saying, DA2 had paraphrases where the player selected a short phrase and the PC said something else. Therefore the PC did not speak something explicitly authorized by the player, which is Auto-Dialogue.

wsandista wrote...

Yes they are, Act 1: get rich for protection, not up to the Player, Act 2: save the city and investigate murders, not up to the player, Act 3: get involved in Mage Templar conflict, not uo to the player

  
Those are actions not motivations.

Hawke tries to get rich to protect his sister or himself, that is a motivation
Hawke saves the city to protect the city, that is a motivation
Hawke gets involved in the Mage-Templar conflict to stop the fighting, that is a motivation

My Hawkes are all different people as much as my  Wardens were. You're being presumptious if you're trying to tell me otherwise. I get that the game didn't work for you as a role playing experience but you're trying to make out like its something universal when it clearly isn't. Is it more limited in its role playing choice than DAO or BG? I've already said it is, but all rpgs are limited to a degree, its a matter of degrees not either/or. Plus there's the fact that the voicing the player character makes the game more explicitly a 3rd person role playing experience rather than the 1st person one you obviously want.

Who were you wardens? My favorites were William Cousland, Santiago Aeducan, and Distas Surana. When I played DAO, I never thought of them as the Warden, they were always thought of by their first name. With Hawke, the PC is always Hawke, no matter what you name them, no matter what class they are, no matter what their personality is, they are always just Hawke.

There is a difference in limiting choices by not having an option to be the last son of Krypton, than having the PC always being the same character.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Well my motivation was to protect my family while the blight was still raging and stay low to avoid the templars in Kirkwall.

They killed Carver within 5 minutes after the game started
They took away Bethany after the expedition.
They kill Leandra in the middle of ACT 2
I had no idea what the hell am I suppose to do in Kirkwall without my family.
I had no idea why the hell should I cared for insane population of never-ending thugs, blood mages who keep attacking me for no apparent reason and corrupted templars.
I had no idea why should I be bothered with a naive companion and fanatics companions who were suppose to be romance-able.
I had no idea why Hawke was so dumb, pathetic, hopeless SOB who couldn't get anything right.
I wanted to go back to Loitering after the blight was over, they didn't allow me.As a result I lost Bethany.
I wanted to go back to Loitering after the expedition, they didn't allow me. As a result I lost Leandra.

What am I suppose to role-play?

[whykikyouwhy]

 There are quite a bit of spoilers here for a non-spoiler forum.