96 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

wsandista wrote...

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.

With the Bhaalspawn or the Hero of Neverwinter you can pick a sex and race but the origin never changes. Neither has much effect on how the game plays out. After the origin the sex and race of your warden hardly comes into the picture. The only one that is most prominent is the dwarf noble and maybe Cousland when he/she meets Howe otherwise it is hardly mentioned.

All my Hawkes are different people from Garrett Hawke, Thomas Hawke, Michelle Hawke, William Hawke. All had different personalities.  I did not get to pick race, but really did not care. I have played enough old games where picking race use to matter in terms of attributes, abilities and skills (under the D & D ruleset), but that is no longer the case. Picking a race use to carry rewards and consequences. You could play a fairy and you had certain special abilities, but could not wear most armor or wield regular weapons. The origins really did not matter much because the rest of the story plays out the same regardless of race or sex.

My Dwarf warden had different first names, but all ended in Aeducan. My Human noble wardens names all ended in Cousland. So it really did not matter to me.

[wsandista]

Realmzmaster wrote...
With the Bhaalspawn or the Hero of Neverwinter you can pick a sex and race but the origin never changes. Neither has much effect on how the game plays out. After the origin the sex and race of your warden hardly comes into the picture. The only one that is most prominent is the dwarf noble and maybe Cousland when he/she meets Howe otherwise it is hardly mentioned.

The Hero of Neverwinter's origin was ambiguous enough for the player to craft any narrative they wanted, as well as that of whatever they called the PC of the expansions. The Bhaalspawn origin was more restrictive, yet still offered plenty of room for player interpretation. The Origins in DAO also left plenty of room for player embellishment of the PC backstory. With Hawke it is always the family lived in Lothering, with Malcolm teaching Mage children how to use magic and dieing 3 years before the start of the game. During the blight, Carver went to war while Bethany stayed behind, when the army falls Carver rushes back to Lothering, the Family joins up and runs away. Normally that would leave plenty of room for embellishment, but having Auto-Dialogue blows that out of the water.

All my Hawkes are different people from Garrett Hawke, Thomas Hawke, Michelle Hawke, William Hawke. All had different personalities.  I did not get to pick race, but really did not care. I have played enough old games where picking race use to matter in terms of attributes, abilities and skills (under the D & D ruleset), but that is no longer the case. Picking a race use to carry rewards and consequences. You could play a fairy and you had certain special abilities, but could not wear most armor or wield regular weapons. The origins really did not matter much because the rest of the story plays out the same regardless of race or sex.

My Dwarf warden had different first names, but all ended in Aeducan. My Human noble wardens names all ended in Cousland. So it really did not matter to me.

Hawke is only Hawke, did you honestly think of any Hawke by their first names or was it always just Hawke? Those Dwarves can all have lead different lives, same thing with the Couslands, and without Auto-Dialogue to contradict any narrative the player creates, those characters can be completely different. Auto-Dialogue can derail player-created narratives, as it did with my Hawke.

And wouldn't fairies just wield tiny weapons and armor in the D&D ruleset?(I'm assuming 3 or 3.5, outside of Infinity-engine games I've never touched 2nd or 1st edition, and I've heard only negative things about 4th)

[AkiKishi]

Motive is down to the player , the game only cares about the act. This is somewhat true of PnP as well. It's not important why a player does something it's the act that is tracked. If you have six characters of varying alignments, they will all have different reasons for doing something. The only thing that is required to drive the story is that they do it.

In the case of Hawke, he does stuff because he's Hawke, he's already been written into the story in such a way. It's especially apparent in chapter 3.
In the case of the Warden it's the same with anything that relates to the job of being a Warden. That's the stuff you can't ignore or turn your back on.

[haroldhardluck]

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

All any COMPUTER RPG game can do is give you the options that correspond to the most common belief systems. If you want flexibility in defining your PC's belief system, you have to play with a live DM who can adjust the script on the fly to match your decisions. Your complaint is invalid as it asks for what is impossible to deliver in a COMPUTER RPG.

Harold

[Sutekh]

 @Sylvius:

For clarification purpose, are incentive and motivation different for you?

Say, for instance, a quest giver tells you to do something or else he kills character X, a companion. Not having character X die would be the incentive, but why you don't want X to die would be the motivation (could be because you love him, or he's a very good warrior, or you intend to kill him yourself for revenge...)

[Realmzmaster]

wsandista wrote...
Hawke is only Hawke, did you honestly think of any Hawke by their first names or was it always just Hawke? Those Dwarves can all have lead different lives, same thing with the Couslands, and without Auto-Dialogue to contradict any narrative the player creates, those characterscan be completely different. Auto-Dialogue can derail player-created narratives, as it did with my Hawke.

And wouldn't fairies just wield tiny weapons and armor in the D&D ruleset?(I'm assuming 3 or 3.5, outside of Infinity-engine games I've never touched 2nd or 1st edition, and I've heard only negative things about 4th)

I thought of my Hawkes by their first name (each first name had significance to me), which meant they were different characters to me. 

No the faeries did not have little armor or weapons. The armor would restrict their wings and weight them down. The Faeries avoided being hit becuase of their lightning speed in flight, dexterity and size. Also the weapon would have to be so light as to be ineffective. Faeries make for poor fighters , but make excellent magic users. Their speed make them good at rogue and monk classes.

[wsandista]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I thought of my Hawkes by their first name (each first name had significance to me), which meant they were different characters to me.

I tried that but it became impossible for me because everyone kept calling the PC Hawke. the Auto-Dialogue also killed the sense of individuality for my PCs. YMMV I guess.

No the faeries did not have little armor or weapons. The armor would restrict their wings and weight them down. The Faeries avoided being hit becuase of their lightning speed in flight, dexterity and size. Also the weapon would have to be so light as to be ineffective. Faeries make for poor fighters , but make excellent magic users. Their speed make them good at rogue and monk classes.

I was under the assumption that fairies could wear any armor or wield any weapons as long as they were proficient and the equipment was tiny size.

Modifié par wsandista, 19 mai 2012 - 11:05 .

[Realmzmaster]

wsandista wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I thought of my Hawkes by their first name (each first name had significance to me), which meant they were different characters to me.

I tried that but it became impossible for me because everyone kept calling the PC Hawke. the Auto-Dialogue also killed the sense of individuality for my PCs. YMMV I guess.

No the faeries did not have little armor or weapons. The armor would restrict their wings and weight them down. The Faeries avoided being hit becuase of their lightning speed in flight, dexterity and size. Also the weapon would have to be so light as to be ineffective. Faeries make for poor fighters , but make excellent magic users. Their speed make them good at rogue and monk classes.

I was under the assumption that fairies could wear any armor or wield any weapons as long as they were proficient and the equipment was tiny size.

Hmmm, could be because 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 D & D  catagorizes them as Fey. The selection of race as I stated use to make a difference. If you played an elf your constitution was less, but you had a greater resistance to sleep spells. Race in DAO really does not matter in regards to physical attributes or characteristics.  Lizardmen were extremely strong but not very intelligent. So creating and having a lizardman spellcaster in a party would be quite interesting.

[wsandista]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Hmmm, could be because 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 D & D  catagorizes them as Fey. The selection of race as I stated use to make a difference. If you played an elf your constitution was less, but you had a greater resistance to sleep spells. Race in DAO really does not matter in regards to physical attributes or characteristics.  Lizardmen were extremely strong but not very intelligent. So creating and having a lizardman spellcaster in a party would be quite interesting.

Only for Wizard, I don't believe Lizardmen had any charisma or wisdom negatives, so Sorcerer and Divine casters worked quite well, especially because of the natural armor bonus. I haven't touched 4 but in 3(and 3.5, but they're almost identical rule wise), Elf had 2 less constitution, but 2 extra dexterity, were immune to sleep spells, didn't have to sleep(4 hour meditation instead), proficiency with longswords, rapiers, and bows(long and short), and had keen senses which allowed them to constantly search. Fairies could wear heavy armor, but it had to be for their size which was tiny. The only times armor was restricted was in the case of non-humanoids.(by humanoid I mean roughly human shaped, not the creature type)

Anyways, race in DAO basically determined 4 bonus points to attributes and gave dwarves magic resistance. In DA3 I hope they have significant differences in the races, both in attributes and special abilities. It was a real shame that there were not huge differences stat wise between the races.

[Fast Jimmy]

wsandista wrote...

Anyways, race in DAO basically determined 4 bonus points to attributes and gave dwarves magic resistance. In DA3 I hope they have significant differences in the races, both in attributes and special abilities. It was a real shame that there were not huge differences stat wise between the races.

Humans get no bonuses, penalties or special abilities for their race.

That's about the extent of the differences we will see with race in DA3, since that's the only race we'll see as playable.

[wsandista]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Anyways, race in DAO basically determined 4 bonus points to attributes and gave dwarves magic resistance. In DA3 I hope they have significant differences in the races, both in attributes and special abilities. It was a real shame that there were not huge differences stat wise between the races.

Humans get no bonuses, penalties or special abilities for their race.

That's about the extent of the differences we will see with race in DA3, since that's the only race we'll see as playable.

That is a shame. Unless DA goes down multiplayer or MMO, which would be even worse.

[Sir JK]

In an attempt to bring it back to quests rather than character creation:

The big problem with having Motivation-Neutral quests is that you cannot actually bring the character into that quest's particular storyline. The only conflicts that they can evoke is either purely Game-Mechanical or a Impersonal Moral conflict (a moral dilemma in how to resolve a situation you have no stake in). With no motivation assumed then you cannot bring the character into the conflict.
Sure, we can imagine a personal stake in them. Such as wanting to involve one's character into their romance option's troubles. But even there a motivation is sort of assumed, since otherwise that quest will be identical to all other.

Thus, assuming no motivation at all turns the plot into a series of small stand alone episodes where our blank protagonist constantly hovers outside the storyline and never truly enters it. Not so much a story as a series of puzzles and quizzes.

A commonly used way around this is that many games involve a very broad motivation. Baldur's Gate 2 assumes you want to go after Irenicus. KotOR assumes you are somewhat loyal to the republic and the Jedi. DAO assumes your warden doesn't run away from saving the world. DA2 assumes you care about your family and your home (and eventually, the people in it).
The key being that they're broad enough to allow a range of more specific motivations.

Naturally, this procedure works relatively decent for the main plot (it can still evoke the feeling that the player character isn't really part of the plot if not done well, though) but less so for many side quests. Sure, there are easy motivations here as well. Such as Not Wanting to Die, Recovering one's Property, Assisting a Companion or Being Paid to Do It.
But in order to handle a quest that is more personal, you need to bring the PC into it emotionally. And that means that the story requires a motivation since you cannot manipulate an unknown. A story about loss require desire. A story about humility require pride. A story about compassion require a sacrefice.

And really, rpgs should aspire to tell these stories. Because they make up the very best ones in literature and television. Certainly, stories such as those could be made with only npc as cast and the PC as some sort of external arbiter (and they can be fantastic). But since inetractivity is the hallmark of games (and rpgs in particular) they should aspire to involve the PC as the true protagonist.

I feel the key to making it work, however, is to provide you with everything you need in order to form your own opinion well in advance. I should already know if my character is motivated or not well in advance. The cast should be familiar, the background known. It shouldn't be presented after me accepting the quest but prior to it.
The quest should essentially broadcast what motivation it will assume I take if I accept. And the accepting or rejecting of the quest should be me confirming or denying that this is indeed the motivation my character have.
Naturally, the more leeway it allows the better. But in the cases it requires a narrow motivation, I should always have the option to refuse (and not be mechanically punished for it) and perhaps most importantly... have the storyline accept my refusal and conclude that storyline without me (ie. I'll hear about how it turned out afterwards).

An alternative is to provide me with an ability to tell my companions my reaction to something after it's conclusion. Allowing me to lament that things didn't go as planned, express frustration of how I couldn't avert disaster, rejoice over a unusually agreeable conclusion or a resigned acceptance that it probably couldn't have ended any better.

[Wozearly]

Sir JK wrote...

*snip*

I feel the key to making it work, however, is to provide you with everything you need in order to form your own opinion well in advance. I should already know if my character is motivated or not well in advance. The cast should be familiar, the background known. It shouldn't be presented after me accepting the quest but prior to it.

Just wanted to say that was a really good post.

I particularly agree with the point you raised in the quote above.

[Thor Rand Al]

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 have agree with this n maybe add a consequence to refusing a particular quest if we didn't want to do it, but I like the kicking and screaming part lol.  

[Fast Jimmy]

Sir JK wrote...

In an attempt to bring it back to quests rather than character creation:

The big problem with having Motivation-Neutral quests is that you cannot actually bring the character into that quest's particular storyline. The only conflicts that they can evoke is either purely Game-Mechanical or a Impersonal Moral conflict (a moral dilemma in how to resolve a situation you have no stake in). With no motivation assumed then you cannot bring the character into the conflict.
Sure, we can imagine a personal stake in them. Such as wanting to involve one's character into their romance option's troubles. But even there a motivation is sort of assumed, since otherwise that quest will be identical to all other.

I feel like you made some good points in your post, but I feel I disagreed with your initial premise.

We can have personal stake or motivation in a quest or decision without being spoonfed the motivation. The Dark Ritual in DA:O, for example, is a real quandry for a number of reasons. You have choices - perform the ritual yourself or have the other Warden perform it, or refuse. These three choices all have different impact and can create various responses, but the motivation for considering the ritual is not forced on us. We can do it out of self-preservation, we can do it out of curiosity to save the essence of a divine being, we can just want to get it on with Morrigan and have a kid... and, in a similar vein, we can have motivations for NOT wanting to do it. Not trusting the dark/blood magic involved, not wanting to allow Morrigan access to the OGB, not wanting to touch Morrigan sexually with a ten foot pole, etc.,etc.

There are multiple choices to approach the problem, there are multiple motivations for your character to assume that aren't treaded on by auto-dialogue or paraphrasing and there are real consequences to how the ending and the game plays out because of it.

DA2 assigned the motivation that Hawke wanted to stay in Kirkwall, that he wanted to choose a side instead of just standing back and that he had to fight both Orsino and Meredith. The choices all railroad to the same conclusion and path (fight Orsino, fight Meredith, Hawke leaves Kirkwall). 

So we can make a quest very personal without dictating to the player exactly why they care and how they want to resolve a situation and can do so with more of a blank slate character in Origins than the more defined PC that Hawke was. Given that fact, it just begs the question of why have a more defined character creation model when quest design is still being more limited?

[Sir JK]

Actually Fast Jimmy, the DR is to me an example of what I think would be the solution to the problem. The cast of the quest is known; Morrigan and you (with Alistair and mr Secret possibly taking a role). The background has been presented; the dark magic of Flemeth's. Both upon being accepted and rejected will the plot move on, thus leaving you to take the consequences of your character.
It is, as you note, a personal quest. It grants a huge leeway in why you can accept or not (which is positive). But it is not Motivation-Neutral. It does assume a motivation, well motivations. Accepting is vague but does assume that you do it out of a Will to Live. Similarily, refusal is also vague but does imply that you find the magic too dangerous.
Both are broad and vague enough to allow you to infer the details yourself, such as doing out of genuine love for Morrigan (which would be Willing to Live With Morrigan).

But regardless, I think this is how you should do it. Everything I need to know wether my character is willing to accept or not has already been provided. Consequences are allowed for my choice. This is a personal story done absolutely right.
So I'd argue we do, in fact, agree

(As a small tangent I do think you're doing an unfair comparison to DA2. You're comparing a small quest (and one of the more broad ones) to the premise of the majority of the plot. A better comparison would be to target individual quests such as All That Remains or Blackpowder Courtesy, Both quests which does assume a motivation and can to some... be far to limiting in their scope.
After all, not running away from Kirkwall is comparable to not running away from Ferelden. And as you can note, DAO does not give us a more free range of motivations in that regard . In fact, I don't know of a single game ever that allows us to walk away from the main plot permanentaly.
So compare individual quests to individual quests and plot lines to plotlines .
There's more than enough material for comparisons in either case )

[Gebert]

Sir JK wrote...
In fact, I don't know of a single game ever that allows us to walk away from the main plot permanentaly.

Regarding this, there is the Elder Scrolls games, where you can pretty much ignore everything (even though the storyline assumes you do not do so, but anyway...).

[TheRealJayDee]

maxernst wrote...

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.

This. My Hawke was all about caring for his family (which actually made it hard to justify trying to get into Kirkwall at all after realizing there was nothing there for them), building a safe existence for them and maybe even starting a family of his own at some point. And after certain events in Act 2 he just didn't have any family left besides his uncle, and the woman he loved was going to marry another man. All I wanted him to do after Act 2 was to return to Ferelden, after giving the mansion to Gamlen, telling him to try to do better this time. Combined with how he felt about the individual members of his party and other Kirkwall NPCs after Act 2 I can savely say that I never played a character with less reason and motivation to be in a story than my Hawke in Act 3.

Oh, and the Petrice quest was one of the worst experiences I've ever had regarding quest design in games.

Petrice: Do this really dubious thing for me! You know you need the money.
Hawke: Urm, nah, you're way to fishy. Besides, I have money enough, so go **** yourself!
Petrice: Great, thanks for helping!
*Major plot quest added*
Me:

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 21 mai 2012 - 11:37 .

[Dave of Canada]

It doesn't help that rivalry / friendship is hard-tied to the main gimmick behind the character, such as telling Anders to screw off basically makes him think you hate mages or insulting Aveline makes her assume you're unlawful.

[Massakkolia]

Sir JK wrote...

In fact, I don't know of a single game ever that allows us to walk away from the main plot permanentaly.

It's been years since I played it but I'm pretty sure Suikoden II gives the protagonist a chance to run away with his sister from his war-related responsibilities. You get a chance or two to turn back but if you decide to go through with your escape the game ends. I thought it was a poignant solution and I hope to see choices like that in Bioware games. Especially considering that Suikoden series in general doesn't offer as much freedom in character creation as Bioware games do.

Of course the developers want to show the players as much of the game as possible but if a player has created a character that simply wants to give up, the option to quit midway would be nice. You can always replay it differently. Irresponsibility, depression and cowardice are made too difficult to roleplay. Sometimes the character I've created just makes bad choices and it seems pointless for her to continue her mighty quest. A choice to opt-out could be applied to specific quests or even to the main plot at some point.

Modifié par Ria, 21 mai 2012 - 02:15 .

[AkiKishi]

Ria wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

In fact, I don't know of a single game ever that allows us to walk away from the main plot permanentaly.

It's been years since I played it but I'm pretty sure Suikoden II gives the protagonist a chance to run away with his sister from his war-related responsibilities. You get a chance or two to turn back but if you decide to go through with your escape the game ends. I thought it was a poignant solution and I hope to see choices like that in Bioware games. Especially considering that Suikoden series in general doesn't offer as much freedom in character creation as Bioware games do.

Of course the developers want to show the players as much of the game as possible but if a player has created a character that simply wants to give up, the option to quit midway would be nice. You can always replay it differently. Irresponsibility, depression and cowardice are made too difficult to roleplay. Sometimes the character I've created just makes bad choices and it seems pointless for her to continue her mighty quest. A choice to opt-out could be applied to specific quests or even to the main plot at some point.

In Atelier Totori you can stay in bed,  rather than trying to become an adventurer.  


From the characters point of view it's not really that bad of an ending anyway.

Character creation does not always equate with freedom. Totori (example I linked) has a fixed character but 18 different endings.
Witcher2 is another one with a fixed character, but you still have far more freedom to change things than DA2 gave you.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 21 mai 2012 - 02:42 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sir JK wrote...
After all, not running away from Kirkwall is comparable to not running away from Ferelden. And as you can note, DAO does not give us a more free range of motivations in that regard . In fact, I don't know of a single game ever that allows us to walk away from the main plot permanentaly.

No it's not comparable.
You cannot run away from Ferelden because you have been told early in the game that you and Alistair are the only one who can stop the blight before it destroy Ferelden and consume the rest of the world.

In DA 2, You have been told early by Cassandra that the world is already at the brink of war. So what's the point of staying in Kirkwall? It already happen no matter what. This is the flaw that frequently bug frame narrative. Meta-gaming. 

[AkiKishi]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Sir JK wrote...
After all, not running away from Kirkwall is comparable to not running away from Ferelden. And as you can note, DAO does not give us a more free range of motivations in that regard . In fact, I don't know of a single game ever that allows us to walk away from the main plot permanentaly.

No it's not comparable.
You cannot run away from Ferelden because you have been told early in the game that you and Alistair are the only one who can stop the blight before it destroy Ferelden and consume the rest of the world.

In DA 2, You have been told early by Cassandra that the world is already at the brink of war. So what's the point of staying in Kirkwall? It already happen no matter what. This is the flaw that frequently bug frame narrative. Meta-gaming. 

By the time you started playing DA2 it was already over. You were just playing through as Varric was describing things. Any good framed narrative Final Fantasy X , Alpha Protocol , Witcher2 will invariably catch up to real time at some point.
Dragon Age 2 never does. Events are pre-written and you already know the ending thanks to Cassandra giving away the spoilers.

[Tirigon]

I agree with the OP.