767 réponses à ce sujet

[Vormaerin]

Dakota Strider wrote...

There are so many negatives to having a Voiced Protagonist, mostly in what it takes away from the rest of the game. It should be enough to have voiced companions and npc's, and give the players the freedom to play a wider range of character races, and personalities, than force a VO on us, that severely limits our choices, and basically makes us manage Bioware's character, rather than play the character we wish to play.

This is the basic impasse.   You think you get the play the character you want.   I don't.   What if I didn't want to be a warden in the backgrounds where turning Duncan down isn't instant death?  What if I wanted to tell that halfwit Eamon to shut up with his stupid plan?   What if I wanted to take that traitor Alistair and rub his face in the fact that he's a delusional sod?  What if I want to report Anders as a dangerous maniac? 

Oh wait... its not really my character.  Its only my character as long as I create one that matches the story.   Except that I'm less likely to get a perfect match than if the Devs say  "you are Geralt of Rivia and...."   

If you play a CRPG by creating a character from whole cloth and then running through the game, you are constantly up against choosing the least bad dialogue option.  Seriously.... nothing the warden says sounds like what a dwarven thug from the casteless slums would say.  Not unless dwarf slums are a lot different than those of other races.

[Realmzmaster]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

I guess that "The Witcher",  "Deus Ex", and "Alpha Protocol" aren't RPGs by your definition?

The Witcher2 has some RPG elements like inventory and choice of skill progression, but the pre-defined character that was based on a series of books never made me feel like he was my character. I was trying to figure him out the whole game.  I never did get very far in the skill tree by the time the game was over.  Awesome story with awesome graphics, but , no, it didn't feel like an rpg to me.

Dues Ex is suppose to be an rpg?  I thought it was a stealth game like Splinter Cell. I'll have to get back to trying to play it.  The concept was great; a kind of Blade Runner meets Matrix, but the graphics looked so outdated that it reminded me of another game in 2000 that I played were I was looking all around for a typewrter ribbon to save the life of me.

I know both of these games have something similiar, Story Choice.  But from the old days when I read those books that said "if you choose to go down the road turn to pg 32", I never thought of them as a role playing game but as a book that was fun for its alternate stories.

Halo Reach allowed you to choose what type of trooper you were, customize the armor from helmet to boots, and choose the coloring of said armor (green and white: Spartan colors).  But I wouldn't define that as an rpg either.

The D & D solo modules (Ghost of Lion Castle, Blizzard Pass, Maze of the Riddling Minotaur, Lathan's Gold), T & T solitarie modules, Fantasy Trip modules, Fighting Fantasy  and Lone wolf books all worked the same way. Some had pre-set characters others did not (you created your own character). All use the rpg system that they were linked. The character could advance in the module. The passages in the module took the place of the DM.

The player is role playing and making a choice based on the information provided.

[Jerrybnsn]

Realmzmaster wrote...

[
If they are talking about the D & D roleplaying elements I do believe that Vomaerin mentioned about the roleplaying tournaments one plays at the big gaming conventions like Gen Con in which the player is judged on how well the player steps into the role of a predefined character along with others in the party.

I can honestly swear that through all my Friday or Saturday All-nighters of D&D, we never got together and said, "Okay, lets have predefined characters and judge each other on how we step into that role.

It was more like "No, we can't magically resurrect your character from the dead, he's gone.  You were stupid enough not to buy a helmet." 

"I was a fricken barbarian.  Barbarians don't wear helmets!  Fine!  I'll make a mage, who is the brother of the barbarian, come to find a way to raise him from the dead!"

"Well good luck leveling up enough for that before he rots!"

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 19 juin 2012 - 11:32 .

[Dakota Strider]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

If the game has VO, then the main character no longer belongs to the player(s), it belongs to the writers and voice actor. They may as well take away our choices of what they look like, and take away the option to even add a first name. Without a recorded voice, the player at least has the illusion of having their character use whatever type of voice they would want to imagine. With a recorded voice, there is always going to be a number of people that will not like that voice at all, and it will ruin the whole game for them. I am sure everyone can think of at least one example of a voice that drives them nuts to listen to. If a voiceless game ruins the game for someone, is it because they cannot use their imagination as they read the lines?

I would be a proponent of Voiced protagonist IF there were about a dozen voices to choose from (ok a dozen may be greedy, SIX human voices to choose for, for each gender, and two or three to choose from for each gender of each non-human race).

Since the cost of doing this, would mean that the game would have to cut corners in so many other areas, and it still may not be able to make a profit, I know this will never happen, at least not in the near future. And I will bet, that there would not be more than one Voice actor / gender, and that it will force us into Humans as the only race...again. And it means that not everyone will be pleased with the sound of the voice that is used.

There are so many negatives to having a Voiced Protagonist, mostly in what it takes away from the rest of the game. It should be enough to have voiced companions and npc's, and give the players the freedom to play a wider range of character races, and personalities, than force a VO on us, that severely limits our choices, and basically makes us manage Bioware's character, rather than play the character we wish to play.

Why should it be enough to have voiced companions and NPCs? If I am going to use my imagination then do away with the graphics, music and sound effects. Let's go back to Eamon or Super Eamon where text was used to describe the scene much like a DM. I can then totally use my imagination. Interactive Fiction (infocom, Level 9 etc) has never had a problem describing what was going on . Eamon (Super Eamon) and Swordthrust series also used only text. This way the entire game can be done in the gamer's head. Let's not just cherry pick one aspect. I will pick on all of them.

Gamers get engrossed in Hack and Angband with only ASCII graphics and minimum sound effects. Combat can be done by hitting A for attack and any special abilities get assign a function key or letter of the alphabet. We can go back to black and white line drawings like the original Wizardry if we wish to be a little above minimalistic.

Realmzmaster, I will give you credit for knowing the difference between a player character, and an NPC (nonplayer character).  However, offering the argument that if someone wants a Voiceless Main Character, would also lead to voiceless companions is not something anyone is advocating for.  While I admit, that there would be a cost savings, and perhaps allow for some other enhancements in the game, it would be a step backwards to stop having voiced companions and NPC's (something Bioware has done since Baldur's Gate almost 15 years ago).

The PC, belongs to the player, and each player should be given as much flexibility as possible to play the PC in the manner that suits them best.  Having a Voiced PC, that only has one voice to choose from (with a couple different attitudes to say things), takes away almost all player agency, and if they do that, they should stop marketing the game as a Role Playing Game.

The Companions, and other NPC's are who the player interacts with.  In this case, it enhances the experience to give each unique voices, and attitudes.  Just as many Dungeon Masters have attempted to give voice to different NPC's they use, in a pnp game.   Now what Bioware could do, and I have advocated for this in the past, is to quit hiring recognized Hollywood actors, to voice companions and other NPC's.  There are plenty of high quality, no-name, voice actors available that would be able to voice the roles just as well or better, and for far less money.  This would enable Bioware to use the saved money for other aspects of the game.  Of course, for Companions/NPC's that have recurring roles, the same actors/actresses need to be used for consistancy.  But any new roles should avoid using such high priced talent, just for the sake of having a recognized name.

[Korusus]

The development costs for video games has skyrocketed because of full voice acting, game install sizes have skyrocketed because of full voice acting, playtime length has shrunk dramatically across the board because of full voice acting, MMOs with full voice acting like SW:TOR will not be able to introduce new content as dramatically, or as quickly because of full voice acting. 

Skyrim blows away typical RPG sales with a silent protagonist and Bethesda has the time to craft a decent massive DLC that isn't just nickel and diming gamers with Day 1 stuff, BioWare meanwhile is falling to pieces with a ruined reputation but can't seem to get past the need to turn every protagonist into Shepard.  Nevermind that DA:O (with a silent protagonist) was BioWare's best selling game ever.  Let's just keep it going, let's keep buying into the argument that a voice protagonist is necessary or preferred.  This is awesome, I'm sure Dragon Age 3 will be a roaring success..

[Realmzmaster]

Dakota Strider wrote...

snip

Realmzmaster, I will give you credit for knowing the difference between a player character, and an NPC (nonplayer character).  However, offering the argument that if someone wants a Voiceless Main Character, would also lead to voiceless companions is not something anyone is advocating for.  While I admit, that there would be a cost savings, and perhaps allow for some other enhancements in the game, it would be a step backwards to stop having voiced companions and NPC's (something Bioware has done since Baldur's Gate almost 15 years ago).

The PC, belongs to the player, and each player should be given as much flexibility as possible to play the PC in the manner that suits them best.  Having a Voiced PC, that only has one voice to choose from (with a couple different attitudes to say things), takes away almost all player agency, and if they do that, they should stop marketing the game as a Role Playing Game.

The Companions, and other NPC's are who the player interacts with.  In this case, it enhances the experience to give each unique voices, and attitudes.  Just as many Dungeon Masters have attempted to give voice to different NPC's they use, in a pnp game.   Now what Bioware could do, and I have advocated for this in the past, is to quit hiring recognized Hollywood actors, to voice companions and other NPC's.  There are plenty of high quality, no-name, voice actors available that would be able to voice the roles just as well or better, and for far less money.  This would enable Bioware to use the saved money for other aspects of the game.  Of course, for Companions/NPC's that have recurring roles, the same actors/actresses need to be used for consistancy.  But any new roles should avoid using such high priced talent, just for the sake of having a recognized name.

If each player should be given as much freedom as possible to play the character as they see fit  then that means for some the ability to have a voice main character. You want to define freedom as you want it. Everyone does not want the same freedom you do. Some want a voiced PC to help them with their immersion in the game and it has nothing to do with imagination. My imagination has been just fine over more than three decades playing rpgs and crpgs. I can now hear my PC speak in game just like the other characters in the game. It is a refreshing change of pace.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 19 juin 2012 - 11:50 .

[wsandista]

Korusus wrote...

The development costs for video games has skyrocketed because of full voice acting, game install sizes have skyrocketed because of full voice acting, playtime length has shrunk dramatically across the board because of full voice acting, MMOs with full voice acting like SW:TOR will not be able to introduce new content as dramatically, or as quickly because of full voice acting.

That is the truth of it. We keep getting less content for a gimmick.

Skyrim blows away typical RPG sales with a silent protagonist and Bethesda has the time to craft a decent massive DLC that isn't just nickel and diming gamers with Day 1 stuff, BioWare meanwhile is falling to pieces with a ruined reputation but can't seem to get past the need to turn every protagonist into Shepard.  Nevermind that DA:O (with a silent protagonist) was BioWare's best selling game ever.  Let's just keep it going, let's keep buying into the argument that a voice protagonist is necessary or preferred.  This is awesome, I'm sure Dragon Age 3 will be a roaring success..

To be fair, ME3 is Bioware's best selling game ever.

But the main idea in this is true. Bethesda focused on conetnt(which in their case means open-world sandbox) rather than on a gimmick that isn't actually gameplay.

[Vormaerin]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

I guess that "The Witcher",  "Deus Ex", and "Alpha Protocol" aren't RPGs by your definition?

The Witcher2 has some RPG elements like inventory and choice of skill progression, but the pre-defined character that was based on a series of books never made me feel like he was my character. I was trying to figure him out the whole game.  I never did get very far in the skill tree by the time the game was over.  Awesome story with awesome graphics, but , no, it didn't feel like an rpg to me.

Dues Ex is suppose to be an rpg?  I thought it was a stealth game like Splinter Cell. I'll have to get back to trying to play it.  The concept was great; a kind of Blade Runner meets Matrix, but the graphics looked so outdated that it reminded me of another game in 2000 that I played were I was looking all around for a typewrter ribbon to save the life of me.

I know both of these games have something similiar, Story Choice.  But from the old days when I read those books that said "if you choose to go down the road turn to pg 32", I never thought of them as a role playing game but as a book that was fun for its alternate stories.

Halo Reach allowed you to choose what type of trooper you were, customize the armor from helmet to boots, and choose the coloring of said armor (green and white: Spartan colors).  But I wouldn't define that as an rpg either.

If you think inventory has anything to do with roleplaying, I'm pretty sure we are not on the same planet much less the same room.   That was pretty much the argument the Blizzard dev used with me back in Diablo 2's day.  "We have dialogue, character skills progression, choice of race/class, inventory, paperdolls, etc, therefore we are an RPG."     Well, except the dialogue and story were entirely static and didn't react to the player at all.

Deus Ex was a hybrid... mostly an action game, but with heavy doses of RP and the entire story revolved around deciding what JC believed and who he trusted.  And you had real control over whether you played it like a shooter or like a stealth game. Different factions in UNATCO would notice if you were trigger happy or rarely pulled your gun.

[Realmzmaster]

Korusus wrote...

The development costs for video games has skyrocketed because of full voice acting, game install sizes have skyrocketed because of full voice acting, playtime length has shrunk dramatically across the board because of full voice acting, MMOs with full voice acting like SW:TOR will not be able to introduce new content as dramatically, or as quickly because of full voice acting. 

Skyrim blows away typical RPG sales with a silent protagonist and Bethesda has the time to craft a decent massive DLC that isn't just nickel and diming gamers with Day 1 stuff, BioWare meanwhile is falling to pieces with a ruined reputation but can't seem to get past the need to turn every protagonist into Shepard.  Nevermind that DA:O (with a silent protagonist) was BioWare's best selling game ever.  Let's just keep it going, let's keep buying into the argument that a voice protagonist is necessary or preferred.  This is awesome, I'm sure Dragon Age 3 will be a roaring success..

I never said necessary or preferred. I can live without it. In fact I can live without any voice period. Drakensang works quite well without any speech. The problem I have is that members on this forum keep saying others are not using their imagination. Which can be insulting. My imagination is fine and has been so for many crpgs.

Skyrim has been a roaring success, but then so has the Witcher which has a voiced protagonist. Not as successful as Skyrim, but still a success. The Mass effect series seems to have done well with a voiced protagonist for Bioware. How many other games with a silent protagonist has been as successful as Skyrim?  Or is it because Skyrim is a sand box game?

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 20 juin 2012 - 12:02 .

[Vormaerin]

Jerrybnsn wrote...


I can honestly swear that through all my Friday or Saturday All-nighters of D&D, we never got together and said, "Okay, lets have predefined characters and judge each other on how we step into that role.

So, because you never did it, anyone else who did was wrong?

Most campaigns started by everyone trying to figure out how their characters fit together so there could be a campaign, but that's not the only way to do it.   I've also played in campaigns where the DM said  "These are the roles, who wants to play what?"   Did it more often in horror RPing like Call of Cthulhu, but it wasn't unheard of in fantasy campaigning.

Obviously, players aren't judging each other (well, not literally anyway).   But then, no one is judging your RP in Dragon Age either.   It doesn't change the fact that the brown book edition of D&D was a way of making skirmish combat miniatures games more interesting with roleplaying between fights.   And the 1st edition of AD&D was created to address some standardization issues at tournaments.  I believe Gary even says so in the introduction to the PHB.

I've played in D&D games that were "dungeon crawlers" in computer gaming speak.   I've played in ones that were Action RPG.   And I've played in some where five or six sessions passed regularly without a weapon being used.   The were all D&D games.   Well, except the ones that were GURPS, Harnmaster, Rolemaster, Ars Magica, Champions, Runequest, or something else. 

Modifié par Vormaerin, 20 juin 2012 - 12:09 .

[Realmzmaster]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

[
If they are talking about the D & D roleplaying elements I do believe that Vomaerin mentioned about the roleplaying tournaments one plays at the big gaming conventions like Gen Con in which the player is judged on how well the player steps into the role of a predefined character along with others in the party.

I can honestly swear that through all my Friday or Saturday All-nighters of D&D, we never got together and said, "Okay, lets have predefined characters and judge each other on how we step into that role.

It was more like "No, we can't magically resurrect your character from the dead, he's gone.  You were stupid enough not to buy a helmet." 

"I was a fricken barbarian.  Barbarians don't wear helmets!  Fine!  I'll make a mage, who is the brother of the barbarian, come to find a way to raise him from the dead!"

"Well good luck leveling up enough for that before he rots!"

That is your experience. I have had many DM make up campaigns where the group had pre set defined roles. We got to read the roles, pick the ones we wanted. The DM gave a description with backstory of the character and we brought them to life.  One time all the characters were female and we are all males in the group. That session was priceless.
But it would not have happened without the foresight of our DM and everyone bought into it.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 20 juin 2012 - 12:37 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I can honestly swear that through all my Friday or Saturday All-nighters of D&D, we never got together and said, "Okay, lets have predefined characters and judge each other on how we step into that role.

I think that there will always be fundamental differences between most pen and paper RPG experiences and CRPG experiences.

At best, the CRPG experience is like playing PnP with an exceptionally rigid DM that provides lists for what your character can say, and only allows the players to do specifically what he has allowed.

Based on my experiences with people that play a lot of PnP RPG games, a DM that mirrored what a CRPG does would be a DM that had no one playing with him anymore.

The level of freedom afforded by a human DM cannot be mimic'd by a computer (or even a human DM using something like NWN's Aurora toolset). Unless we get cracking on genuine AI that can respond appropriately to the infinite instructions that the players could input, it's always going to be a limitation.

[Vormaerin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Based on my experiences with people that play a lot of PnP RPG games, a DM that mirrored what a CRPG does would be a DM that had no one playing with him anymore.

*laughs*  I've been DMing for over 30 years and I can confidently state that even with players you know well and who trust you, you can't get anywhere near that level of control.   For all the talk of "roleplaying", most players want to play themselves in a different situation than genuinely play a different role.

That's why elves are almost always just skinny human hippies with rubber ears instead of a genuinely alien race.   When they are (like the Aldryami of Glorantha/Runequest), few people play them.

[Dakota Strider]

Once upon a time, when I lived closer to "civilization", I went to different GameCons, and was part of the RPGA. In those type of games, you had little choice, but be handed a character, that had race, gender, class, level, likes and dislikes, already predetermined. You were scored by how well you played that character correctly, using his/her strengths and weaknesses, and staying "in character" to interact with the rest of the party, and NPC's.

DA2 felt closer to that style of PnP, as opposed to the average home pnp game, where the players were able to make many more choices about who their character was. The latter version was more similar to DAO.

Now if a DM has no care about what the players do, and just referee their decisions, then the players can do almost anything they choose. This would be more like Skyrim. However, most DM's that I played with (and myself when I got behind the screen) preferred to have some type of plan that the players followed, although usually with freedom to innovate, and try approaches the DM had not considered. In a CRPG, it is hard to give the players total freedom like that, because of the restrictions of programming, unless the story really does not matter. Bioware in the past, has been able to hit a happy medium that allowed the players to make different choices in the game, that made them feel like they could affect different outcomes. The last two Bioware games I played (DA2 and ME3) felt much more like a tournament RPGA game, where the character did not belong to me, and I was mostly just part of the audience.

[Vormaerin]

Dakota Strider wrote...
 The last two Bioware games I played (DA2 and ME3) felt much more like a tournament RPGA game, where the character did not belong to me, and I was mostly just part of the audience.

Yes, I can see that.  But I think the cause is different than you appear to.  I think its the passivity of the main character in the writing, not the "fixed" nature of the PC.

Shepard in ME3 is weighted down by previous decisions.  The story is really a giant epilogue slide.  Many of the situations were practically determined by what you decided in ME1 or 2.  You simply could not get a good resolution to Rannoch without specific flags from your ME2 save.  You might not even have any meaningful decisions if you had a particularly disastrous set of ME2 outcomes for Tali and Legion's ME2 stories.   The situation on Tuchanka was nearly as constrained.   Not to mention, the bad ass moments on Tuchanka went to the thresher maw and to Mordin.  Shepard's only real Tuchanka decision is "Am I a completely reprehensible **** to my friends or not?"    Hardly a thrilling decision. 

Hawke's story is told in such a way that he (or she) is rarely at the center of it.  The primary connection point to the arc (his family) gets steadily eroded and the NPC's plots are more relevant than anything you are doing.

Its hard to take ownership of a character that is entirely reactive.   If they had written DA2 with Hawke driving the plot  "I am going to get rich and badass or die trying!" instead of "ah, those useless templars will solve this plot before it bites me in the ass.  I'm going to the Hanged Man,"   it would be much easier to feel like Hawke was yours.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 20 juin 2012 - 02:29 .

[Realmzmaster]

Dakota Strider wrote...

 The last two Bioware games I played (DA2 and ME3) felt much more like a tournament RPGA game, where the character did not belong to me, and I was mostly just part of the audience.

Here is where I think we differ. Any role or character I step into or if necessary create belongs to me. Wether it is pre defined or gamer created I make the decisions and the choices. I make the character my own whether those choices or decisions affect the outcome or not.

The outcomes have already been pre-determined by the developers. The gamer simply gets an illusion of choice. If you pick the elves over the werewolves in DAO the outcome will be the same the first time and the tenth time or vice versa. There is zero probability of a different outcome.The first two playthroughs that is fine, by the time I got to the third playthrough I flipped a coin. Choices and decisions are limited by what the developers foresee. The computer program can only respond by the way it is programmed. Not in the program then it is not going to happen.

A human DM does not have that limitation. Human DMs can improvise.

I had no problem making Hawke my character, but other people YMMV.

[Direwolf0294]

I wouldn't say it's a must but I really hope they include it. I find it really hard to get involved in a story if the main character's not voiced, especially if it's an RPG. There are exceptions of course, such as Bethesda RPGs or the Portal games, but that's because the worlds are so immersive and because the other characters in the game manage to carry the entire story (in the case of portal). Unless BioWare plans on making DA3 a sandbox game in the style of Elder Scroll or they stick GLaDOS and Wheatley in the game then I think they should have the player character voiced.

[Nomen Mendax]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think that there will always be fundamental differences between most pen and paper RPG experiences and CRPG experiences.

At best, the CRPG experience is like playing PnP with an exceptionally rigid DM that provides lists for what your character can say, and only allows the players to do specifically what he has allowed.

Based on my experiences with people that play a lot of PnP RPG games, a DM that mirrored what a CRPG does would be a DM that had no one playing with him anymore.

The level of freedom afforded by a human DM cannot be mimic'd by a computer (or even a human DM using something like NWN's Aurora toolset). Unless we get cracking on genuine AI that can respond appropriately to the infinite instructions that the players could input, it's always going to be a limitation.

Sure, but that's not a reason not to try to create a game that allows players as much flexibility and as many options as possible while still providing an engaging story.  Unfortunately full VO and cinematic cut scenes make it much harder to make a game  like that.  Personally, I'd rather that developers spend more time working on AI (for combat, conversation and for gameplay) and less time on voice acting and cinematic cut scenes.  But I think that would be a really hard sell.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 20 juin 2012 - 04:51 .

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I can honestly swear that through all my Friday or Saturday All-nighters of D&D, we never got together and said, "Okay, lets have predefined characters and judge each other on how we step into that role.

I think that there will always be fundamental differences between most pen and paper RPG experiences and CRPG experiences.

At best, the CRPG experience is like playing PnP with an exceptionally rigid DM that provides lists for what your character can say, and only allows the players to do specifically what he has allowed.

Based on my experiences with people that play a lot of PnP RPG games, a DM that mirrored what a CRPG does would be a DM that had no one playing with him anymore.

The level of freedom afforded by a human DM cannot be mimic'd by a computer (or even a human DM using something like NWN's Aurora toolset). Unless we get cracking on genuine AI that can respond appropriately to the infinite instructions that the players could input, it's always going to be a limitation.

One of the best PnP games I ever played was an underdark campaign where the DM pregenerated our characters. We still got to pick our classes, roll the stats etc. But the background was interwoven into the story of the campaign. As such we had a campaign personalised to those characters. In CRPG terms , it would be like playing the Witcher.

Unless the game is taking place in your head. Then there is little point in creating a character that the world will never acknowledge as a part of it. A first name that is never used, an appearence that is never referenced what is the point in a game that was written to be a story and not a sandbox experience ?

[AkiKishi]

Vormaerin wrote...
Hawke's story is told in such a way that he (or she) is rarely at the center of it.  The primary connection point to the arc (his family) gets steadily eroded and the NPC's plots are more relevant than anything you are doing.

Its hard to take ownership of a character that is entirely reactive.   If they had written DA2 with Hawke driving the plot  "I am going to get rich and badass or die trying!" instead of "ah, those useless templars will solve this plot before it bites me in the ass.  I'm going to the Hanged Man,"   it would be much easier to feel like Hawke was yours.

Bioware games have always been like that. NPCs have always driven the plot not the PC. The difference in the later ones is there are a lot less empty spaces. Give someone with a predispostion to roleplay an empty space and they will fill it.

[Jerrybnsn]

Vormaerin wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...


I can honestly swear that through all my Friday or Saturday All-nighters of D&D, we never got together and said, "Okay, lets have predefined characters and judge each other on how we step into that role.

So, because you never did it, anyone else who did was wrong?

No, I'm saying that's not role playing.  That's having a competition. Like just before the NBA All-star game they hold Dunking contests to see who has the most flourishing dunk.  That's not playing a game thats taking one aspect of the game in a predefined narrow enviorment and grading it.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 20 juin 2012 - 10:17 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Based on my experiences with people that play a lot of PnP RPG games, a DM that mirrored what a CRPG does would be a DM that had no one playing with him anymore.

The level of freedom afforded by a human DM cannot be mimic'd by a computer (or even a human DM using something like NWN's Aurora toolset). Unless we get cracking on genuine AI that can respond appropriately to the infinite instructions that the players could input, it's always going to be a limitation.

Sure, but that's not a reason not to try to create a game that allows players as much flexibility and as many options as possible while still providing an engaging story..... 

I have always try to respect the effort that a DM put into creating an adventure set before us and the surrounding enviroment in which we would be acting.  It's frustrating for a DM to put a lot of effort in a backstory, loot and characters that we would meet, only to have the players sabatoge it right from the get go and thus ending the adventure before it even began. 

But from the begining of this particular part of the discussion, it's been in reference to  the rpg aspect of allowing you to create your own character by choosing race, class, gender and the begining skills in which you'll start your game.  Then let the DM set the stage.  In this aspect I found that Origins did a lot better job at this than DA2.  "Okay, you choose your race, class, gender and skill points.  Now here is your enviroment that you begin your adventure that Bioware has set before you."---That's all I'm saying.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 20 juin 2012 - 10:26 .

[AkiKishi]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...


I can honestly swear that through all my Friday or Saturday All-nighters of D&D, we never got together and said, "Okay, lets have predefined characters and judge each other on how we step into that role.

So, because you never did it, anyone else who did was wrong?

No, I'm saying that's not role playing.  That's having a competition. Like just before the NBA All-star game they hold Dunking contests to see who has the most flourishing dunk.  That's not playing a game thats taking one aspect of the game in a predefined controlled enviorment and grading it.

It's not that different from an actor acting a part. It's still playing a role.It's just not creating the role you play.

[Jerrybnsn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...


I can honestly swear that through all my Friday or Saturday All-nighters of D&D, we never got together and said, "Okay, lets have predefined characters and judge each other on how we step into that role.

So, because you never did it, anyone else who did was wrong?

No, I'm saying that's not role playing.  That's having a competition.

It's not that different from an actor acting a part. It's still playing a role.It's just not creating the role you play.

But in context of trying to make a video game more like the PnP RPGs?  They have made a video game were you can select certain scenes of movies and act it out with your image on screen, and be graded for it.  It's called Yoostar, if I'm not mistaken.  It might be fun at partys, but it hasn't sold very well.

[Yrkoon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The level of freedom afforded by a human DM cannot be mimic'd by a computer (or even a human DM using something like NWN's Aurora toolset). Unless we get cracking on genuine AI that can respond appropriately to the infinite instructions that the players could input, it's always going to be a limitation.

That's an Ideal.  Most Ideals cannot be reached.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards them anyway.

The Best cRPGs are the ones that come closest to that ideal.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 20 juin 2012 - 10:41 .