778 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No timers without an available pause.  Never mandatory timers.

To be clear, I said acceptable, not preferred.

AP was just so good at story and character that even with a timer and intent I still felt like Mike was my character in ways that Shepard never was.

I really need to play that.  I've had it sitting on my shelf for more than a year.

[addiction21]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No timers without an available pause.  Never mandatory timers.

To be clear, I said acceptable, not preferred.

AP was just so good at story and character that even with a timer and intent I still felt like Mike was my character in ways that Shepard never was.

I really need to play that.  I've had it sitting on my shelf for more than a year.

SPend less time on these forums? Its what I do when I need to get something done.

Then agtain I am not a good example. I got piles of books, games and movies I have not touched and yet I pulled out the ole SNES to play FF6 and Zelda a link to the past about a month ago...

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No timers without an available pause.  Never mandatory timers.

To be clear, I said acceptable, not preferred.

AP was just so good at story and character that even with a timer and intent I still felt like Mike was my character in ways that Shepard never was.

I really need to play that.  I've had it sitting on my shelf for more than a year.

Outside of it being from Obsidian, I really shouldn't like the game at all.

I don't like modern setting.  I really don't like military or espionage or spy games, and I despise "stealth" in games.

Add in a fixed male protagonist (well, name, most of apperance and background, at least), complete voice, dialog wheels with timers, lots of guns....

I shouldn't have even played the game, honestly.

The story and the control you have over it, as well as the control you have over Thorton and his choices, are uncanny.  I think even if you nitpick other parts of the game, these two factors will make you love it, StM.

[Sylvius the Mad]

addiction21 wrote...

SPend less time on these forums? Its what I do when I need to get something done.

That's good advice, actually.  I need to stop visiting here in the evenings.

[Sharn01]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Then you introduce extra work and substantially drive up the costs. FFXIII-2 has interactive cutscenes but the characters are still scripted. If you started making variable scenes you would end up with DA2's 3 ways to say the same thing in cutscene form. Rather than things that lead to a different outcome.

Three ways to say the same thing is exactly what I want to see designed into the game.  The outcomes don't matter.  What matters is how the character behaves.

I would have to agree completely with this.  It doesnt matter if the outcome is roughly the same, so long as the player is able to make decisions, and the game is able to reflect some of those decisions.

Take the Grace/Thrask thing in the last chapter of DA2 if you where a mage supporter.  What if when you arrived and accused them of the kidnapping, their "prisoner" was just standing there talking to them?  As they explain they did not kidnap him/her a group of Templars rush in and start fighting, it was all a trap and they used you to find them.  You join the fight against them, most of the mages survive but Thrask and Grace both die, you can even talk to one or both of them as they are dying,  the end result is basically the same, the people that needed to die did so, but the game reacted to your decisions.

Granted, the game does not even need to go anywhere near this far to give the player agency, this would be an over the top way to do so.  But if you cant make scenes that reflect the characters choices, then dont make scenes at all for that choice, its bad form to make scenes that force the PC to make decisions or ignore the choices they make, and games do not need them to be cinematic.  The alternative is a game where the cutscenes often take control of the character away from you, and nearly ignore every decision you make.

Modifié par Sharn01, 10 juillet 2012 - 04:02 .

[Allan Schumacher]

In regard to the Shepherd comments being made, there are two obstacles to the logic that Shepherd is voiced, people have 'their Shepherds', ergo people can connect with a VO character.

The first fallacy is that while there are people (like myself) who liked and played ME and DA, not every DA player likes ME and vice versa. So what works in one group may not work in another.

If I'm guilty of making a fallacy by equating DA players and ME players (which I didn't think I did), then you're also guilty of summarily dismissing that there may be an overlap.

This is not a recommendation to have set characters going forward. But it is an indictment that a VO only works with a more set protagonist.

After reading the rest of your post, your conclusions ends up becoming a straw man. The issue brought forth is whether or not people can feel as though the a PC can still feel like their own character despite cinematics and VO (and even the dialogue wheel). That VO works better with a character that has a more established back story doesn't appear to preclude someone from feeling ownership over that character.

What you did was demonstrate that people can take a set protagonist with an established history, and still take full ownership of the character to the point where people believe it is "their Shepard." Perhaps character ownership is better reflected in a wide scale with in game player agency rather than backstory?

Is it better to have a blank slate with a story that is quite linear with absolutely no player agency, or a "pregen" character that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 10 juillet 2012 - 05:21 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is it better to have a blank slate with a story that is quite linear with absolutely no player agency, or a "pregen" character that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

False dichotomy.  As BioWare demonstrated several times with their pre-voice games, we can have a blank slate PC while also being allowed to make a wide variety of choices.

KotOR is probably the best example.  It offered a branching plot, genuine consequences, and a blank slate character.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 juillet 2012 - 05:06 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is it better to have a blank slate with a story that is quite linear with absolutely no player agency, or a "pregen" character that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

False dichotomy.  As BioWare demonstrated several times with their pre-voice games, we can have a blank slate PC while also being allowed to make a wide variety of choices.

KotOR is probably the best example.  It offered a branching plot, genuine consequences, and a blank slate character.

It's not a false dichotomy.  I'm asking a direct question.  At no point did I indicate that the two were mutually exclusive.

[Realmzmaster]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is it better to have a blank slate with a story that is quite linear with absolutely no player agency, or a "pregen" character that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

False dichotomy.  As BioWare demonstrated several times with their pre-voice games, we can have a blank slate PC while also being allowed to make a wide variety of choices.

KotOR is probably the best example.  It offered a branching plot, genuine consequences, and a blank slate character.

It's not a false dichotomy.  I'm asking a direct question.  At no point did I indicate that the two were mutually exclusive.

I think the problem is that your question sounded more like a statement. It helps if the question marks get typed instead of periods.

I think the point comes down to how a gamer wishes to roleplay. Some feel it would be better to have a blank slate character with a linear story if the gamer feels it gives the gamer better ownership of the PC. Others can roleplay either way because they slip into the role. The best possible is to have a blank slate character with a multitude of choices.

Some previous crpgs allowed the gamer to create the entire party. The gamer could then head canon and roleplay each character in the party. Any romanaces and such would be in the gamer's head and not on the screen or in the writer's story. 

[Allan Schumacher]

I think the problem is that your question sounded more like a statement. It helps if the question marks get typed instead of periods.

Fair point, it should have been a question mark not a period (I'm not a writer nor an editor hahaha). That paragraph through was led into with the following question as a transition in the previous paragraph: "Perhaps character ownership is better reflected in a wide scale with in game player agency rather than backstory?"

I think the point comes down to how a gamer wishes to roleplay. Some
feel it would be better to have a blank slate character with a linear
story if the gamer feels it gives the gamer better ownership of the PC.
Others can roleplay either way because they slip into the role. The best
possible is to have a blank slate character with a multitude of
choices.

No doubt different people are going to have different preferences.  This board is reflective of that IMO.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 10 juillet 2012 - 06:04 .

[AmstradHero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Actually I'm totally ambivalent towards the existence of timers. I like mulling over difficult decisions (I must've gotten up and paced for like an hour at my first Dark Ritual) but I can see how it would help with immersion and whatnot.

I don't see how that would help with immersion at all.  It would just draw my attention to the UI, something the game should try really hard not to do.

This is why I argue against having different game modes.  Give us one interface for the entire game and let us work through it - taking it away, bringing it, changing it: these all just take me out of my character and back into the reality of a a gameplayer.

Name one RPG that has only one interface. Even the infinity engine games don't, as they bring up a dialogue window which I have to interact with separately to how I interact with other objects. They've also got the inventory screen, which is a different interface again. If you're arguing that every interface change is a break of character, gaming or immersion, then you'd basically be limited to... FPS games. That's it.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Also I wonder what someone would do IRL if they asked me a question and I just kinda stood there for 5 minutes before answering.

They wait for me.

This is exactly the kind of ridiculous situation that makes timers good. No one in their right mind would stand around and simply wait in silence while someone starts there doing nothing. It's a complete immersion breaker and only serves to highlight the artificial nature of the experience. I didn't think I would like timers, but in the context of a voiced protagonist, especially with a tone/intent dialogue selection, they enhance the cinematic presentation and flow of the game and dialogue in a way that non-timed games can't.

Take, for example, when Morrigan offers the dark ritual in DA:O and the warden just stands there for 5 minutes going "... " Yet Morrigan waits patiently for the warden to respond without a word. If Morrigan was actually in that situation, she would almost certainly have demanded answers and stormed off before that time.  Or ME1 on Virmire, where squadmates are under attack and a bomb timer is counting down, but Shepard just waits on a catwalk deciding what to do.

This kind of indecision and allowed pause belies, nay, undermines, the urgency and importance of the decision-making by allowing the player to just metagame their way to what they think is the best decision. Furthermore, if you're truly roleplaying a character, and you can't make the decision of what to do in what would be considered "real" conversation time, then I'd contend that you don't actually have a clear picture of the personality of the character you're playing. Real people make quick decisions and hold real, flowing conversations every day. If we've got a voiced protagonist they shouldn't pause for a minute before every line they say.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 10 juillet 2012 - 07:28 .

[Jerrybnsn]

AmstradHero wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Also I wonder what someone would do IRL if they asked me a question and I just kinda stood there for 5 minutes before answering.

They wait for me.

This is exactly the kind of ridiculous situation that makes timers good. No one in their right mind would stand around and simply wait in silence while someone starts there doing nothing. It's a complete immersion breaker and only serves to highlight the artificial nature of the experience.

Take, for example, when Morrigan offers the dark ritual in DA:O and the warden just stands there for 5 minutes going "... " Yet Morrigan waits patiently for the warden to respond without a word. If Morrigan was actually in that situation, she would almost certainly have demanded answers and stormed off before that time.  Or ME1 on Virmire, where squadmates are under attack and a bomb timer is counting down, but Shepard just waits on a catwalk deciding what to do.

This kind of indecision and allowed pause belies, nay, undermines, the urgency and importance of the decision-making by allowing the player to just metagame their way to what they think is the best decision............. Real people make quick decisions and hold real, flowing conversations every day. If we've got a voiced protagonist they shouldn't pause for a minute before every line they say.

Considering games allow us to experience decisions, events and consequences that would reflect a few days worth in just a couple of hours of our time, I don't see how mulling over a decision to respond for a couple of minutes would undermine immersion.

The first time I played Origins, the two biggest decisions I mulled over was who to send into the Fade to rescue Conner and whether to do the Dark Ritual or not.  During each decision I might have been sitting and staring at the screen for a few minutes, maybe even much as five, trying to decide what would be the best  option.  Even if Morrigan had to wait ten or twenty extra minutes for me to come to a decision, I don't see how that go against a reflection of what real time would be like.

Consider this too, you can also turn the game off, get back to it in a couple of days and reload it at an early part.  So I see conversation timers as an unnecessary feature in rpg games.

[AkiKishi]

Timers work well in AP. It's a pressure game, life and death choices that you have to take without having any time to really think about it. There is at least one instance where the game takes control for the good of the story. But overall you get a huge ammount of freedom in approach. Linear levels aside.

The important thing is that everything fits together and you don't get a situation like DA2 where different design features pull in different directions.

[Fredward]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They wait for me.

Sheldon Cooper exists... and he plays Bioware games.



As for the rest of the post that I accidentally backspaced and am now too lazy to go back to, I don't understand that if something like the HUD bothers you so much that being able to stand there looking like a potato for undefined periods of time doesn't. I mean lets imagine Hawke just kinda standing there during the Final Straw when he/she has to choose who to support. Not doing anything just kinda... standing. Or when you have to kill the Archdemon and you're speaking with Alistair/Loghain and you just wait there while the big gluted dragon is just kinda panting in the background for like... a week. 

Now mind you, this doesn't bother me, becuase I know I'm playing a game and some things just won't make sense (lists of dialogue options also don't pop up every time I wanna say something xp) but if that level of immersion is what you're going for I don't understand how you can say no to HUD (I'm not sure that's the right terminology) but imitating a lamppost doesn't rustle your jimmies. 

[Jerrybnsn]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They wait for me.

......... I don't understand that if something like the HUD bothers you so much that being able to stand there looking like a potato for undefined periods of time doesn't. I mean lets imagine Hawke just kinda standing there during the Final Straw when he/she has to choose who to support. Not doing anything just kinda... standing. .........................but if that level of immersion is what you're going for I don't understand how you can say no to HUD (I'm not sure that's the right terminology) but imitating a lamppost doesn't rustle your jimmies. 

I suppose the character standing there on the tv screen, staring at everyone like 'a lamppost', until you select from the dialogue tree or dialogue wheel does bother players who are concerned with watching cinematic expressions.  Which I'm not one of them.  As I stated above, the big decisions that I mulled over for the most part in Origins, I spent a few, if not more, minutes reflecting my options.  However, in my mind, playing as the character, I wasn't just standing there like a statue.

Like in real life whenever you are making such important decision, I walked around, looked up at the sky, looked down and the ground, glanced back at the npc that I was interacting with, rubbed my fingers through my hair, scratched my beard, rubbed my face and eyes............ but more like in real life, I was oblivious to my immediate surrondings and to what I was doing as I was in deep thought and concentration.

But I don't play rpgs to watch myself in cinematic expressions.  To me, that breaks the immersion more than having the character stand there like a lamppost waiting for the next dialogue.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If I'm guilty of making a fallacy by equating DA players and ME players (which I didn't think I did), then you're also guilty of summarily dismissing that there may be an overlap.

I'm guilty of a lot worse things than that, but I don't think I'm guilty of this. Especially since I name myself as a member of that overlap right beforehand.

After reading the rest of your post, your conclusions ends up becoming a straw man. The issue brought forth is whether or not people can feel as though the a PC can still feel like their own character despite cinematics and VO (and even the dialogue wheel). That VO works better with a character that has a more established back story doesn't appear to preclude someone from feeling ownership over that character.

What you did was demonstrate that people can take a set protagonist with an established history, and still take full ownership of the character to the point where people believe it is "their Shepard." Perhaps character ownership is better reflected in a wide scale with in game player agency rather than backstory?

Is it better to have a blank slate with a story that is quite linear with absolutely no player agency, or a "pregen" character that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

It would definitely better to have a pre-gen character with lots of choice. However, a cinematic approach often has a knack for diminishing choice, for a lot of reasons. Divergent outcomes are less likely to be accommodated or accounted for, since it would require cinematic scripting of two different scense. Conversations wind up going to the same conclusion, because it is required that the same voiced lines get said to progress the plot. Not to mention the myriad of different ways people have discussed in this thread to forcing the PC to say or do something that they felt was not in character.



I was leafing through some You Tube videos this weekend and found one of the Anvil of the Void from DA:O. Watching it, it made me realize why I felt much more attached to my Wardens than I did my Hawkes (who I wound up feeling a mite bit of animosity towards instead of attachment). It was the camera.

In DA:O, all talking NPCs are locked on, pointing my focus on them. When I walked into the Anvil of the Void's room, I am shown a cinematic of my party walking in, past a number of lumbering golems. But as soon as Caridan starts talking, I'm focused on what he's saying, I'm not flipping back and forth between pictures of Caridan, to my Warden, to the view of the Anvil and the lava flow beneath... I'm listening. Similarly, when Shale pipes in, the camera switches over to her, and then Caridan, as they have their back and forth. The camera does not pull back and show me the two of them talking, it keeps focus on the person talking. Then, when Branka comes running in, it does the same. It does not show my Warden shaking his head at her mad ramblings, or appalled when she talks about sacrificing more lives to create the golmes...



The point is this - the scene was intense and the reason it was so was because it was NOT cinematic. Cinematic, as in cinema, as in movies. Movies do not make you feel as though you are the actor, playing the character. Occassionally, this does happen, but that is not the strength of movies. Movies tell a story that the viewer passively enjoys. You can have anti-heroes, who take risks with people's lives that you wouldn't normally, because you don't have to feel like you ARE that anti-hero. 

With DA:O, the camera angle actively worked to NOT have the PC in the shot. Except for a small handful of instances in the game, the PC was just never shown. This was nice, as it would be like walking past a mirror IRL and realizing you don't look like your normal self. Just like a poorly placed mirror in a magic show can reveal the trick and break the illusion, so too does showing the PC too much. 

The camera angle also did its best to focus on one thing at a time - namely, exactly what the PC would be looking at. If a ten foot tall golem started talking to me and stated it was one of the most famous Dwarven Pagagons to ever live, I'd be watching nothing else but him and what he'd have to say. Similarly, if a crazy woman who had slaughtered her entire clan came running in and screaming at me not to do something, I'd be pretty fixed in on what she had to say.

A camera that continuosly flips between the speaker, who I am supposed to be listening to, and the PC, who I am supposed to "be" is one that is portraying a scene in a cinematic, movie type manner. Which, again, does not make me feel like I am the character any longer. Throw in instances of speech or talking that I don't control and it further compounds the issue.

Notice, I didn't state anything about my Warden. I didn't state race, origin (I wouldn't have stated gender if pronouns were easier to use in a monogenic way), nothing to indicate who they were. Because, while I was playing, I WAS the Warden. That's the way the game felt. So I could not help BUT feeling attached to that character! When presented with the DR, I honestly felt like doing it was the best option because it saved my life. I would not have felt anywhere near that reaction if Hawke was offered the same deal. I would have killed him off every time - not because he was inherently a bad guy (although I couldn't stand his uppity-goody-good voice with a diplomatic personality, nor his sardonic, smart-donkey attitude towards everything with the snarky responses... and I can't see how anyone could play the near-gorrilla type behavior of the aggressive personality) but he wasn't me. 

And that is what I think is wrong with the cinematic approach in DA2. By trying to make the PC more alive, by including them in shots and cutscenes, they remove the player from that same scene. It diminishes the ability to feel immersed, because the cinematics are doing all their work trying to put the PC in the scene, not the player.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 juillet 2012 - 12:27 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

.........not because he was inherently a bad guy (although I couldn't stand his uppity-goody-good voice with a diplomatic personality, nor his sardonic, smart-donkey attitude towards everything with the snarky responses... and I can't see how anyone could play the near-gorrilla type behavior of the aggressive personality) but he wasn't me. 

This is what the problem is of having VO in general.  Choosing dialogue comes down to Nice, Snarky, Jerk instead of reflecting on what to fully say, because you have no idea what the protagonist is going to say.  I never really felt like there was an issue in a time limit for selecting dialogue in DA2.  I blew past the options; Jerk, Jerk, Jerk, Jerk, Jerk......hmmmm?  A choice to make of top one or bottom one. BOTTOM ONE!  It's a rut that I fell into very easily.

[sevalaricgirl]

I love TOR, absolutely addicted to it, but I'm also replaying DA2. I really like it. My problem with Bioware now is the linearity of their games. What happened to branching story lines that have different endings, it has been done in the past, it is being done now. Bioware needs to listen to their fans. I didn't even buy ME3 because I didn't want to play another of their action games. I did like what they did in DA2 as far as combat but the linear stories have to go. If they want to force a conclusion, there should be alternate paths to the conclusion. Frankly, ME3's ending was awful, definitely not well thought out. (My son owns it). Bioware tells a good story but they need to let the player decide the path, not be forced into it. Bioware does not make RPGs anymore. They make action adventure games.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 10 juillet 2012 - 12:37 .

[Plaintiff]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Timers work well in AP. It's a pressure game, life and death choices that you have to take without having any time to really think about it. There is at least one instance where the game takes control for the good of the story. But overall you get a huge ammount of freedom in approach. Linear levels aside.

The important thing is that everything fits together and you don't get a situation like DA2 where different design features pull in different directions.

It would be great if certain decisions required you to make a decision/satisfy a goal within a certain time limit. I can think of at least two instances in Deus Ex: HR where dragging your feet can have a lasting impact on the story, and that was really awesome.

[Wulfram]

@ Fast Jimmy I do very much agree with you as to DA:O's conversations.

DA:O style conversations can look awkward when watching youtube videos, but they're very immersive for me when playing. That they only focus on the PC rarely, usually when the dialogue is putting the focus on the PC looking inward, helps that.

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
What you did was demonstrate that people can take a set protagonist with an established history, and still take full ownership of the character to the point where people believe it is "their Shepard." Perhaps character ownership is better reflected in a wide scale with in game player agency rather than backstory?

I don't know that I ever feel "ownership" over somebody like Geralt or Adam Jensen or Mike Thorton though. I feel ownership over the decisions I make while controlling those characters but never ownership over the actual character.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Is it better to have a blank slate with a story that is quite linear with absolutely no player agency, or a "pregen" character that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

Its better to have a blank slate with a story that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

I think its a tradeoff though. I think one of the most important and involving parts of a good RPG is usually character creation. Thats where you can take ownership over the character and make "your" character. For me at least, having a more involved CC process gives me a greater sense of ownership over the character I've made such that subsequent choices being made in the game feel more significant by default, since its "my" character, not some already premade person that I'm just loaning out for a few hours.

Its like the difference maybe between buying a premade PC versus taking the time to research and build one yourself or fixing up an old car and making it road worthy versus just buying one new or cooking a great meal yourself as opposed to just going to a restaurant. You feel a greater sense of accomplishment and ownership when you create something yourself as opposed to taking something that's effectively premade. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy the premade version but its a different experience and a different level of satisfaction.

For myself, BioWare's recent games like ME and DA end up in a weird middle ground because on one hand it gives you some tools to make the PC feel your own but then strips other aspects away. Like you can customize Hawke or Shepard's face but their voice is fixed. To me, thats insanely bizarre and damaging to my sense of player agency since in creating the face for the PC, I'm thinking of them sounding a certain way. It would be like if you were cooking some dish and halfway through preparing it, some totally random person shoved you aside and forced some totally random ingredient in finished the dish you were preparing without knowing what you were actually doing.

[AmstradHero]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
The point is this - the scene was intense and the reason it was so was because it was NOT cinematic. Cinematic, as in cinema, as in movies. Movies do not make you feel as though you are the actor, playing the character.
...
And that is what I think is wrong with the cinematic approach in DA2. By trying to make the PC more alive, by including them in shots and cutscenes, they remove the player from that same scene. It diminishes the ability to feel immersed, because the cinematics are doing all their work trying to put the PC in the scene, not the player.

This is partially an inherent issue with a voiced protagonist, which has to be shown. Since BioWare have said they're not going to move away from a voiced protagonist, the issue is somewhat moot.

However, I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying. I could easily play my Hawke, my Shepard, and my Thorton, but I could never be them. I could be the Warden, because I didn't really look at "me" often, and dialogue and cutscenes were frequently shown from "my" point of view.

I can roleplay with a voiced protagonist, but I only get to control the protagonist rather than be the protagonist. That's a very significant distinction, particularly for RPG lovers.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 10 juillet 2012 - 01:50 .

[AkiKishi]

Brockololly wrote...
Its better to have a blank slate with a story that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

I think its a tradeoff though. I think one of the most important and involving parts of a good RPG is usually character creation. Thats where you can take ownership over the character and make "your" character. For me at least, having a more involved CC process gives me a greater sense of ownership over the character I've made such that subsequent choices being made in the game feel more significant by default, since its "my" character, not some already premade person that I'm just loaning out for a few hours.

Its like the difference maybe between buying a premade PC versus taking the time to research and build one yourself or fixing up an old car and making it road worthy versus just buying one new or cooking a great meal yourself as opposed to just going to a restaurant. You feel a greater sense of accomplishment and ownership when you create something yourself as opposed to taking something that's effectively premade. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy the premade version but its a different experience and a different level of satisfaction.

For myself, BioWare's recent games like ME and DA end up in a weird middle ground because on one hand it gives you some tools to make the PC feel your own but then strips other aspects away. Like you can customize Hawke or Shepard's face but their voice is fixed. To me, thats insanely bizarre and damaging to my sense of player agency since in creating the face for the PC, I'm thinking of them sounding a certain way. It would be like if you were cooking some dish and halfway through preparing it, some totally random person shoved you aside and forced some totally random ingredient in finished the dish you were preparing without knowing what you were actually doing.

There is a problem with a CRPG trying to be something it's not. We can call the ability to roleplay in past CRPGs a sort of "happy accident" due to the limitations of the technology of the time. Characters are more detailed now, they need to be expressive and defined. Leaving no room for imaginings.

Is there a point to character creation when character creation is rendered meaningless by the game ? I'd say not.
Even if you remove the voice, you are still limited by the preselected options and ultimately voiced or not it comes down to how much you enjoy the story you are in.

ME and DA are middle ground. Bioware has yet to find the courage to step over the line into fully pre-generated characters even though that is what they have been to one extent or another. Even as far back as BG .

[DahliaLynn]

@Fastjimmy  You really nailed it.

Wulfram wrote...

DA:O
style conversations can look awkward when watching youtube videos, but they're very immersive for me when playing. That they only focus on the PC rarely, usually when the dialogue is putting the focus on the PC looking inward, helps that.

I've mentioned this myself on several occasions. To the outsider watching a video, it looks odd. To the player, it feels natural because he is actually involved, watching the characters react to his decisions in a semi first person manner.  I think the player's experience takes precedence over a casual viewer.

Brockololly wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Is it better to have a blank slate with a story that is quite linear with absolutely no player agency, or a "pregen" character that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences.

Its better to have a blank slate with a story that has a multitude of choices that can be made in the game. Ideally with divergent gameplay and genuine consequences. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png[/smilie]

I think its a tradeoff though. I think one of the most important and involving parts of a good RPG is usually character creation. Thats where you can take ownership over the character and make "your" character. For me at least, having a more involved CC process gives me a greater sense of ownership over the character I've made such that subsequent choices being made in the game feel more significant by default, since its "my" character, not some already premade person that I'm just loaning out for a few hours.

Its like the difference maybe between buying a premade PC versus taking the time to research and build one yourself or fixing up an old car and making it road worthy versus just buying one new or cooking a great meal yourself as opposed to just going to a restaurant. You feel a greater sense of accomplishment and ownership when you create something yourself as opposed to taking something that's effectively premade. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy the premade version but its a different experience and a different level of satisfaction.

I like your comparisons though, while a blank slate would be optimal as you mentioned, I don't think it has as much of an impact on it being *my* character as the game style/delivery.  I personally don't mind a character with a past, as long as I can feel that it is physically my point of view and choices made are "my own" dialogue choices as in the DA:O style interface, where the main focus is on what the character sees. Watching my character talk takes away from that personal experience. So even if I temporarily enter into a character's shoes smack dab in the middle of his or her life, the main difference whether I feel that character is me, or someone I control stems from the conversational/cutscene differences between DA:O and DA2. 

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 10 juillet 2012 - 02:55 .