767 réponses à ce sujet

[Yrkoon]

Teddie Sage wrote...

Yes. Lazy. You don't purchase a video game expecting a certain amount of characters to be voiceless. If I wanted to read something, I'd purchase a book.

And If I  wanted to just  watch  and listen to cinematics, I'd rent a movie.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 20 juin 2012 - 10:33 .

[ashwind]

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

There are many flavours of RPG and most importantly there is no law that governs the definition of RPG. Some people just feel that pre-generated characters are RPG because "RP" literally translates into "acting out the role" and there is nothing wrong with it.

We just have to accept that RPG means different things to different people. Just because you or I do not like it, does not render the other opinion "not role-playing"

But in context of trying to make a video game more like the PnP RPGs?

I do not think Bioware is trying to do that, not at all.

Modifié par ashwind, 20 juin 2012 - 10:51 .

[Jerrybnsn]

ashwind wrote...

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

There are many flavours of RPG and most importantly there is no law that governs the definition of RPG. Some people just feel that pre-generated characters are RPG because "RP" literally translates into "acting out the role" and there is nothing wrong with it.

We just have to accept that RPG means different things to different people. Just because you or I do not like it, does not render the other opinion "not role-playing"

But in context of trying to make a video game more like the PnP RPGs?

I do not think Bioware is trying to do that, not at all.

They use to.

[Vormaerin]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

No, that's not true.  Well, not unless you count the antagonists, but that's not what I meant.  No companion was more important to the story than the main character in BG1&2, NWN, ME1 & 2, Jade Empire, etc.   They come pretty close in DAO and ME3 and they definitely are in DA2.

[Vormaerin]

Jerrybnsn wrote...




They use to.

No, they didn't.  They tried to replicate the D&D game mechanics, which is not related to roleplaying at all.   The only game that made any attempt to replicate a real RPG was NWN.   And even then, it was more like two games:  a standard computer RPG and an entirely separate do it yourself kit.   Everything Bioware actually produced was Computer RPG, not conducive to use with the DM tool at all.

Anyway, if you want to take the extremely limited view that the only true roleplaying is whatever you did with your friends, then more power to you.  Luckily, Bioware seems rather less intolerant than that.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 20 juin 2012 - 12:16 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lol. This is why BioWare should just stop trying to make RPGs. Wouldn't get academic arguments like these. I firmly feel as if BioWare's focus on NPC driven cinematic narratives would be better served by being in a different genre (like the Action-Adventure one) rather than the RPG genre.

The RPG genre is inherently one more focused on the protagonist(s) and how the ruleset drives player-game interaction, especially in how the protagonist(s) grow physically or mentally/emotionally.

I can't help but feel that BioWare in Dragon Age 2 is being held back by having to pay lip service to RPG tropes and mechanics, without really getting to the core of what the purpose of said mechanics are - it's thrown in, just because.

For example, why make a party based game but remove detached viewpoint and make it easy on default difficulty to the point where you don't need to switch characters around? Why have a protagonist that's meant to be a victim of circumstance, yet present them as the ultimate confident badass beating down a dozen well armed foes in seconds? Why have a complex (often arbitrary) stat system and item system that tries to copy Diablo in a story based game?

It ultimately ends up being either poor RPG gameplay, or pointless gameplay since it presents a barrier for the player from actually interacting with what you want them to interact with - the characters and story.

If Dragon Age 2's NPC driven cinematic narrative is truly the direction they wish to focus in, BioWare should either make the RPG gameplay integral to the experience, or ditch it altogether.

[Fast Jimmy]

CrustyBot wrote...

Lol. This is why BioWare should just stop trying to make RPGs. Wouldn't get academic arguments like these. I firmly feel as if BioWare's focus on NPC driven cinematic narratives would be better served by being in a different genre (like the Action-Adventure one) rather than the RPG genre.

The RPG genre is inherently one more focused on the protagonist(s) and how the ruleset drives player-game interaction, especially in how the protagonist(s) grow physically or mentally/emotionally.

I can't help but feel that BioWare in Dragon Age 2 is being held back by having to pay lip service to RPG tropes and mechanics, without really getting to the core of what the purpose of said mechanics are - it's thrown in, just because.

For example, why make a party based game but remove detached viewpoint and make it easy on default difficulty to the point where you don't need to switch characters around? Why have a protagonist that's meant to be a victim of circumstance, yet present them as the ultimate confident badass beating down a dozen well armed foes in seconds? Why have a complex (often arbitrary) stat system and item system that tries to copy Diablo in a story based game?

It ultimately ends up being either poor RPG gameplay, or pointless gameplay since it presents a barrier for the player from actually interacting with what you want them to interact with - the characters and story.

If Dragon Age 2's NPC driven cinematic narrative is truly the direction they wish to focus in, BioWare should either make the RPG gameplay integral to the experience, or ditch it altogether.

But the action segments of DA2's gameplay aren't solid enough to stand on their own.

Just like ME3 couldn't really stand on its own merits for being a shooter next to games like MW3, DA2 definitely couldn't stand on its own merits of being a hack n' slash action game compared to Diablo 3 or even GoW. Party based combat, companions and choice are the trademarks of Bioware games.

In DA2, when they limited our interaction with companions, made the party based combat non-essential except on Nightmare and railroaded all choice into the same outcomes throughout the game, it was panned by many of its (previously) loyal followers. 

So I don't think that Bioware needs to transition solely over to action-based titles, simply because they haven't shown they have what it takes to make these mechanics strong enough to enjoy in a game by themselves.

...unless you are just totally trolling us with that comment, in which case... tip of the hat to you. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 juin 2012 - 12:46 .

[AkiKishi]

Jerrybnsn wrote...
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.

Why would you ? Witcher2 had both critical acclaim and blockbuster sales. DA2 did not. Witcher2 made no attempt to be like PnP it just attempted to be a good game with solid characters and lot's of important choices.

[Jerrybnsn]

Vormaerin wrote...


No, they didn't.  .......  Everything Bioware actually produced was Computer RPG, not conducive to use with the DM tool at all.

Anyway, if you want to take the extremely limited view that the only true roleplaying is whatever you did with your friends, then more power to you.  Luckily, Bioware seems rather less intolerant than that.

Let's not forget what brought us to this particular part of the discussion.  Is VO a must for DA3?  And I said no, because if VO is what killing off race options that I would rather have a more rpg game that allows race options.  You say that its not a must, but VO is more important to the rpg element than race options, so if one has to go it should be race options.

I'm not intolerate.  I'm just putting a stronger priority on race options than VO. (which personally I think VO detracts role playing because you watch to see what a character will do and say)

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 20 juin 2012 - 01:52 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

You misunderstand me. I feel as if the action segments of DA 2, ME, et al are unable to stand on their own precisely because they attempt to hold onto the label of RPG and implement mechanics that don't work with respect to the story or game.

You either want gameplay that's good enough to stand on it's own, or good enough to support what the game is trying to do. Fallout 1/2 is a great example of gameplay that's crap by itself, but great in practice because it supports the design goals of the game.

Dragon Age 2's is neither, and one of the chief reasons is because it has a number of mechanics or design decisions that result in unsatisfying gameplay, or gameplay that contradicts the narrative tone, as a half hearted attempt to be "RPG". Look at CCC, poster boy example. Interesting concept, but utterly irrelevant to anything and everything in the game.

Doesn't have to be twitch or action combat either. But unless BioWare attempts to make gameplay that meshes well with what the game is trying to show the player, then it's better to ditch all notions of being "RPG".

I feel like RPGs are mainly about an expression of character. A character that you envision, or take control of. The ways in which this is possible are rough and abstracted (stats, character systems, etc), but because they are imprecise or imperfect, they allow the imagination to take hold. The game's content is then about how to make the connection between imagination and hard, solid mechanical systems for the character(s) according to the goals the game sets out (whether it be simulation, telling a certain story, dungeon crawling, etc).

i.e Low INT = your character is a ****** and speaks in grunts.

It's the same with PnP, and various PnP games reflect this in how they structure their rulesets.

Dragon Age 2 fails in making satisfying RPG gameplay (imo), because it fails in carrying that connection. It has numbers, it has stats, it has all this crap, so it's an "RPG" but there's no sense of purpose to it. BioWare hasn't been great at this since they stopped relying on D&D rulesets, but Origins gave it a good, hard try. Tactics, Specializations, Equipment for all classes, etc. There was a connection between how you conceptualized your character and what they were actually able to do in terms of interacting with the game/story.

What I'm saying is that if BioWare are unable/incapable/unwilling to do that for the next Dragon Age and make it work with their NPC driven cinematic narrative concept, then they're better ditching it the RPG genre altogether, because it's just not going to work otherwise. Considering David Gaider's sentiments on player agency, I'd argue Dragon Age would be better off as an Action/Adventure game.

Things like VO are in the periphery to all this. As much as we'd all like to argue how much we imagine ourselves in the heads of our PCs, and say things in a certain tone of voice, it's simply not a concious enough thing to get angry over, provided other elements of the game engage us in the way we'd like. At least, that's how I feel.

The problem I see with VO is the fact that it's tonally based to fit to 3 archetypes rather than contextually based and that the paraphrases can be extremely obtuse. You essentially copy Deus Ex: HR's system (or that dialog compass idea I keep floating around) and a lot of the criticism of the wheel halts. Because while you don't necessarily get the option to alter dialog to your liking subconciously, you get the control and precision to know what your character says before they say it.

As Sylvius says, your character should never be surprised by what they say.

Also, what I'm saying may be influenced by the fact that I'm not as dependent on BioWare as previously on making good story heavy RPGs. There are plenty coming in the future, so if they wanna go Action/Adventure, no skin off my back. They aren't "betraying" me by leaving RPGs behind.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 20 juin 2012 - 01:52 .

[Jerrybnsn]

CrustyBot wrote...

Dragon Age 2 fails in making satisfying RPG gameplay (imo), because it fails in carrying that connection. It has numbers, it has stats, it has all this crap, so it's an "RPG" but there's no sense of purpose to it. BioWare hasn't been great at this since they stopped relying on D&D rulesets, but Origins gave it a good, hard try. Tactics, Specializations, Equipment for all classes, etc. There was a connection between how you conceptualized your character and what they were actually able to do in terms of interacting with the game/story.

What I'm saying is that if BioWare are unable/incapable/unwilling to do that for the next Dragon Age and make it work with their NPC driven cinematic narrative concept, then they're better ditching it the RPG genre altogether, because it's just not going to work otherwise. Considering David Gaider's sentiments on player agency, I'd argue Dragon Age would be better off as an Action/Adventure game.

Agree.  Origins set the standard and it was in the formula of the older Bioware rpgs.  But as long as Dragon Age is going to be attached to their next game it will have to live up to that standard.  They would have been better off starting a new action IP instead of dismantaling an older rpg IP.

[robertthebard]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...


No, they didn't.  .......  Everything Bioware actually produced was Computer RPG, not conducive to use with the DM tool at all.

Anyway, if you want to take the extremely limited view that the only true roleplaying is whatever you did with your friends, then more power to you.  Luckily, Bioware seems rather less intolerant than that.

Let's not forget what brought us to this particular part of the discussion.  Is VO a must for DA3?  And I said no, because if VO is what killing off race options that I would rather have a more rpg game that allows race options.  You say that its not a must, but VO is more important to the rpg element than race options, so if one has to go it should be race options.

I'm not intolerate.  I'm just putting a stronger priority on race options than VO. (which personally I think VO detracts role playing because you watch to see what a character will do and say)

While I don't really disagree with the sentiment, I'd like to point out that in every day life, we all watch to see what another will do or say in relation to what we do or say.  The vast majority of people will edit themselves for television in a room full of kids, for example.  Or we'll watch how we present what we say in the presence of women, and this will vary even more if it's somebody we want to get closer to.  This is the very essence of role playing, since I can go 180 degrees from who I really am, assuming the options are available in dialog, whether it's voiced or not.

[Jerrybnsn]

robertthebard wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Let's not forget what brought us to this particular part of the discussion.  Is VO a must for DA3?  And I said no, because if VO is what killing off race options that I would rather have a more rpg game that allows race options. 

While I don't really disagree with the sentiment, I'd like to point out that in every day life, we all watch to see what another will do or say in relation to what we do or say.  The vast majority of people will edit themselves for television in a room full of kids, for example.  Or we'll watch how we present what we say in the presence of women, and this will vary even more if it's somebody we want to get closer to.  This is the very essence of role playing, since I can go 180 degrees from who I really am, assuming the options are available in dialog, whether it's voiced or not.

So when you role play you like to "watch" how you present yourself? Like watching yourself on TV?

[Kidd]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

It would also be exactly like playing Dragon Age Origins/2. Only difference between the three games here being that in DAO you got to pick which of the six roles you wanted, whereas in 2 and the Witcher you're just given one.

[Jerrybnsn]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

It would also be exactly like playing Dragon Age Origins/2. Only difference between the three games here being that in DAO you got to pick which of the six roles you wanted, whereas in 2 and the Witcher you're just given one.

I think this is the one where he said their DM made them play "all female" characters.

[Realmzmaster]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

It would also be exactly like playing Dragon Age Origins/2. Only difference between the three games here being that in DAO you got to pick which of the six roles you wanted, whereas in 2 and the Witcher you're just given one.

I think this is the one where he said their DM made them play "all female" characters.

No I never said made. The DM cannot make you do anything. I said the group bought into the experience because we like to roleplay. The female characters were all pre-generated by the DM. The group of all males step into those roles. We had a very good time adventruing that way and doing our best to stay in character as the DM had fleshed it out..

[Realmzmaster]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

ashwind wrote...

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

There are many flavours of RPG and most importantly there is no law that governs the definition of RPG. Some people just feel that pre-generated characters are RPG because "RP" literally translates into "acting out the role" and there is nothing wrong with it.

We just have to accept that RPG means different things to different people. Just because you or I do not like it, does not render the other opinion "not role-playing"

But in context of trying to make a video game more like the PnP RPGs?

I do not think Bioware is trying to do that, not at all.

They use to.

This shows character creation using D & D mechanics. You can do the same with any pnp system you wish to translate to the computer. New World Computing did it with Tunnels and Trolls in the game Crusaders of Khazan and Trokia did it with Vampire the Masquerade-Bloodlines. 

I created many characters for my wife to play using different crpgs (including DAO). She took the character and made all the decisions and choices. She made the character I created her own and played the role. In your view since I created the character she is not roleplaying. That is why it is said you have a limited definition of roleplaying which you are entitled but every does not prescribe to that definition.

Character creation is only one aspect of roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I have yet to see any aspect of roleplaying that is improved by adding voice-over to the player-controlled characters, and I have seen many aspects of roleplaying badly harmed by it.

When a voiced PC allows us to deliver exactly the line we've chosen exactly the way we would like, then it will be acceptable. Not before.

[David Gaider]

CrustyBot wrote...
Lol. This is why BioWare should just stop trying to make RPGs. Wouldn't get academic arguments like these. I firmly feel as if BioWare's focus on NPC driven cinematic narratives would be better served by being in a different genre (like the Action-Adventure one) rather than the RPG genre.

That's only true if it bothers us that there are fans who like to argue about what an RPG should/must be. RPG's as a genre cover a lot more territory than some would like-- and that's fine insofar as it makes for a discussion on a forum-- but it causes no more misconceptions when compared to genre expectations than it would if we suddenly said we were an Action-Adventure game or whatever else. I think most people believe RPG's involve lots of story, talking and stats... and the nuances otherwise are meaningless to anyone who isn't an RPG grognard.

Personally, I'd say player VO isn't a must for an RPG. Silent protaganists work great, so long as there's not a lot of cinematics involved-- Fallout or Skyrim, for instance, use a first-person view where you don't see your own character and the dialogue is mostly talking heads. For their purposes, that works.

If you have cinematics, then it becomes problematic to also have a silent PC. Yes, I'm aware that some people liked it well enough in DAO (and it's no surprise you'd see a concentration of those people on the DA forums). We really did our best to work around it, so it's nice to see people who thought that was successful. We don't, however, think it works all that well for our purposes... so while player VO isn't a must for an RPG, it's a must for where we intend to take this RPG. That naturally leads to arguments over whether that makes it enough of an RPG, what an RPG is and whether we should do things like have a completely preset character or abandon the RPG genre label altogether... and while such discussions are great they're simply not what we're going to do.

We'd rather focus our efforts on how to make that better work for the kind of RPG we're trying to create than dwell on classifications of RPG's. I don't think we've any illusions that our solutions will work for everyone-- but, then again, they never do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

-snip-

I applaud your efforts to improve the voiced PC.  If you manage to succeed, I will be overjoyed.

I'm not comfortable declaring that a voiced PC cannot work in a roleplaying game, but I haven't seen it work yet.  Not even close.

And incidentally, I don't like the first-person perspective.  I play both Skyrim and FO3 in third-person.  I like to see my character.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 juin 2012 - 05:17 .

[Darth Death]

David Gaider wrote...

 We don't, however, think it works all that well for our purposes... so while player VO isn't a must for an RPG, it's a must for where we intend to take this RPG. 

I'm starting to wonder what these purposes are, and to be frank, they're beginning to scary me. 

[AkiKishi]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

It would also be exactly like playing Dragon Age Origins/2. Only difference between the three games here being that in DAO you got to pick which of the six roles you wanted, whereas in 2 and the Witcher you're just given one.

Well there was one race choice Drow. So you could play any class as long as it was a Drow class. The Witcher class is a lot more flexible so you don't really need more than one, it's down to how you develop your version of it.

[Wulfram]

I've given up on the PC VO. Even if I did find DA:O conversations very natural.

DA2 was generally OK with occasional frustrating moments, as were ME1 and 2. But I still want as much control over what's coming out the PCs mouth as possible, and I definitely don't want to be turned into a spectator while the PC talks independently as much as in ME3.

If nothing else, it gets a little boring to just watch people talk. If I've sat down to play a game, I want interaction.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

As long as you got to control the character's personality, that would work fine.

Yes, the framework for that personality was written for you, but within that framework you had total freedom.  Why your characters did anything was up to you.  The DM didn't, I'm guessing, routinely tell you that you hadn't actually said what you thought you said.

Pre-generated characters are fine as long as the player is allowed to have perfect knowledge of his character's mind.  That's all I ask.  Any details explicitly given to the player at or before character creation are immutable, but filling in all the gaps in the character's personality needs to be the player's job.

So, for example, if your DM didn't specific a favourite colour for your PC, you could do that yourself.
 
DA2's failure was in how it would routinely correct the player.  This is why DA2 was broken.

[Elhanan]

While I enjoy full VO, what I dislike in it thus far is having to escape or reload beciase of vague interpretations on the wheel. If these were more exact, thus preventing a departure from character, I would enjoy them even more.