778 réponses à ce sujet

[Jerrybnsn]

Brockololly wrote...

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.

Sort of like the last Halo game where you can customize your Spartan with the type of armor and upgrades, plus any color scheme you like.  Actually, he seemed more like playing myself as the hero because he didn't have a voice over, or acted independently by showing cinematics.  So the Spartan in Halo:Reach was more of my character than either Shepard or Hawke.  Way to go Bungie

[Brockololly]

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. 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.

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.

Nicely said. I seem to recall either reading something on the old BioWare forums or in some interview maybe regarding Origins how they mentioned having camera angles with the Warden taking place over the shoulder during conversations as a purposeful decision.

But it gets to the same reason something like Half Life 2 or Skyrim or the conversation battles in Human Revolution work well- you're mostly kept in a first person POV. You are the character. That gets to the whole first person role playing thing and how BioWare seems to be disallowing and abandoning that play style.

BobSmith101 wrote...
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.

They don't need to. Just look to games like Dead State or Wasteland 2 and how they're approaching things. Its more how you want to present things. Seemingly for BioWare they want to invest in showing characters up close with all the work that goes into that. But I don't think that's necessary. 

It kind of harkens back to George Lucas and the prequels with all the CG green screen crap he shoved into every single scene just because he could. Just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean you should. Just because the tech exists to do cinematic close ups with voice acting and character animations doesn't mean its the best way to go about things.

DahliaLynn wrote...
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.

Yeah, you'd often hear people that complained of DAO's cinematics that the Warden would often just sit there blank faced. I think thats partly a failing of sticking to their cinematic guidelines and not playing by the ground rules they seemingly had in keeping most views of the Warden over the shoulder or more POV type shots.I think its very possible to do a game like DA:O with an unvoiced PC but you just need to not try and cram in techniques that would work better with a voiced PC.

DahliaLynn wrote...
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. 

That's true too. The manner of presentation definitely affects how you're going to perceive the story and player character. I think thats really one of the unique strengths video games can have as opposed to movies or TV.

Modifié par Brockololly, 10 juillet 2012 - 03:26 .

[Uccio]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

For me Shepard never felt "my" character and neither did Hawke. I accepted Shep as a set character because I never felt ME as rpg. Even though it was that more in the beginning and less in the end (one reason why I didn´t buy ME3). Hawke was closer but the limited discussion possibilities and too few tones didn´t help. However, Warden was "mine" most probably because I had so many option to choose from while discussing and I could imagine the tone in my head.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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 apologise.  I assumed rhetoric.

Choosing one over the other would, I think, produce an incomplete game experience.  The lack of one prevents the other from being useful.  Without the ability to make choices, the blank slate is irrelevant (though dialogue options are choices, and would be sufficient, but you did explicitly say "no player agency").  But with a pre-gen character, we lack the tools necessary to inform the decisions we're being asked to make.

Players who choose options moment-to-moment because they are fun or they want to see what happens, those players would almost certainly choose the pre-gen character with in-game choices.  I am not one of those players.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

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.

Both the BG games and NWN had dialogue take place within a text box that was always on screen.  There was no change for conversation.  Nor did the camera suddenly move with no player input.

Inventory screens are triggered by the player, so the player isn't being taken out of anything - he's doing it himself.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

They will if they want to hear my reply.

But it's also irrelevant.  Your character isn't taking 5 minutes to respond.  You are, but you exist outside the game world.  That you spend 5 minutes deciding which option to choose is not evidence that your character spent 5 minutes doing the same thing.  You are not your character.  Your character is not you.   I might spend 5 minutes working out how to respond, but I might also decide that my character's reponse is offered immediately.  Time shouldn't pass in the game while I'm pondering my options.  That's how combat works.  That's how dialogue should work.

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.

If the cinematic presentation ever interferes with the player's ability to control his character, the cinematic presentation needs to give way.

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.

But nor does it force metagaming.  If someone wants to metagame, why should BioWare stop them?  If you don't want to metagame, then don't metagame.

I don't want to metagame, but I also don't want to be rushed when making decisions.  Usually I make decisions very quickly in the game, but if a set of dialogue options arises where none of them appear to suit my character at first glance, I the need to go through a fairly laborious process of working out what possible state of mind my character could have that would render one of those options sensical.

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.

Except for that example I just mentioned.

Real people make quick decisions and hold real, flowing conversations every day.

Yes, but real people aren't choosing from among a finite set of pre-written dialogue options.  Your conversations would not be as fast and free-flowing if I got to decide what you were allowed to say.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 juillet 2012 - 08:52 .

[Jerrybnsn]

So is it confirmed that DA3 will be another preset character in an "action" game genre? Tell me now, so I don't keep suggesting how they can improve their next game.

[schalafi]

I still like the concept of combining the best of both DA games in DA3, but as time gets closer to us getting some real info about the game, the speculation will just get crazier.

[Realmzmaster]

I think a lot of it has to do with how people roleplay. Many in this thread are saying that roleplaying the warden immerses them better because the warden becomes them or they become the warden. Hawke and Shepard are just characters they control.

My take is that I can roleplay any of the characters because I step into the role. I become Hawke or Shepard or the Warden. I assume their story. It is like an actor stepping into a role. I can if I want play the warden as myself or not myself. I can play Hawke as Hawke shaping him through the dialog choices. I become Hawke, but the options also allow me to shape Hawke in an image of myself if I so chose. Like an actor I can bring myself into the role or not.

Others may not wish to role play that way and I understand that. That is why I have no problem with a set (pre-gen) or a blank slate protagonist.

[DahliaLynn]

The only time I've ever felt like Hawke was "me" was when the NPC's reacted to my choices. When Hawke spoke, there was a sudden disconnect. I think subconsciously, I tried to shut out the visible portions when Hawke spoke, as it was less interesting for me to see her (in my case) as opposed to what the NPC was saying. In fact, I desperately wanted her to feel as if she was me, only was continuously interrupted when she became the visible focus.

It's ok for me to control another character. That's simply a different kind of game for me. But personally I get far more gratification when I feel as if it is myself playing.

@Realmzmaster I can't really connect with the way you feel. As a voice actress myself, I don't see how I can get into character when someone else is doing the talking for me. It feels more like a director's position.

[philippe willaume]

as Fast Jimmy mentioned, it is true that having the player in focus, a VO are detrimental to ownership of the player and game immertion.

That being said that I fell more ownership of Shepard in ME1 alone or geralt than I ever will with hawke or any of my skyrim chars.
the only thing that are pre-set in shepard is that he/she is human, has a voice, Can't dance and has deplorable sartorial taste. You can choose his/her backstory, what he/she looks like and what class he/she will be.

hawke and skyrim char are more pushing stats for me, like the old D&D.

for me it is what effect the char as on the story, and may be it is more owning the story than the char,

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

No disagreement here!

When discussing what makes a player feel like they have ownership of the character, this thread did remind me that many feel like Shepard is "their Shepard" in Mass Effect, in spite of voiced characters, cinematics, and even the dialogue wheel.

Obviously there's a divide somewhere. I find that interesting. Where is it? What allows some player that takes a character like Shepard and still feel as though it's the player's story, whereas another feels its too much of a pregen and a hurdle they must overcome in order to enjoy the game?

[Wulfram]

Shepard has about the least defined background of Bioware characters that have any sort of defined background. That helps.

[ianvillan]

Allan Schumacher 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.

No disagreement here!

When discussing what makes a player feel like they have ownership of the character, this thread did remind me that many feel like Shepard is "their Shepard" in Mass Effect, in spite of voiced characters, cinematics, and even the dialogue wheel.

Obviously there's a divide somewhere. I find that interesting. Where is it? What allows some player that takes a character like Shepard and still feel as though it's the player's story, whereas another feels its too much of a pregen and a hurdle they must overcome in order to enjoy the game?

I think a major problem with Hawke for me was that he had a family and you were told that you had to care for them but wasn't shown why.

Another problem with Hawke that made him seem as if he wasn't my character was having quests that forced you to do them with no explanation why you had to. (the sheparding wolves quest)

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What allows some player that takes a character like Shepard and still feel as though it's the player's story?

The ability to control Shepard's thoughts.  As long as I'm the one determining how Shepard feels and what his motives are, then I'm in control.  it doesn't matter if he performs the same fixed sequence of tasks, but I need to decide why he does it.

That's where the paraphrase causes me so much trouble.  I'll establish motives for the PC, and then I'll select dialogue options that don't contradict those motives.  But then I'm choosing dialogue based not on what is does say, but on what it doesn't say.  The only way to know everything a line doesn't say is to see the whole line.  I want to choose an option that doesn't break my character, but with the paraphrase I can't tell.

[Dave of Canada]

I imagine Shepard's backstory options allowed for more options to tailor the protagonist towards the player's ideal character, it was rather undefined and you could imagine all sorts of things fitting the character and such.  Like the Earthborn origin in ME1, you were capable of acting warmly / apathetic or disgusted at the idea of the gang and it didn't need to go anymore in depth than that.

Least with Hawke, you've got Lothering and Malcolm which are shrouded in mystery but are brought up in conversation and you have to smile and nod with most of them as you were never be able to respond differently about your past experiences or the people who contact you. Despite trying to create a personal story, it felt rather disconnected.

[DahliaLynn]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Obviously there's a divide somewhere. I find that interesting. Where is it? What allows some player that takes a character like Shepard and still feel as though it's the player's story, whereas another feels its too much of a pregen and a hurdle they must overcome in order to enjoy the game?

I think theres a difference between "my story" and feeling as if it were myself as the character. All stories I play, Shephard or the Warden were my own stories. Whether or not I play actor or director shouldn't really change that since it is I who is making the decisions.  The question is, is it me? or is it the character I control? Which do I like playing better? I think that's where the actual divide exists.

The more I feel I am the character, (as in the first person focus of DA:O) the more personal it is for me. It doesn't make Shephard any less my own than the Warden, only as the Warden, is actually "me" and I like it that way

Edited to make better sense.

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 10 juillet 2012 - 09:26 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I think theres a difference between "my story" and feeling as if it were myself as the character. All stories I play, Shephard or the Warden were my own stories. Whether or not I play actor or director shouldn't really change that since it is I who is making the decisions. The question is, is it me? or is it the character I control? The more I feel I am the character, (as in the first person focus of DA:O) the more personal it is and I think the line between "my story" and "I'm actually the hero" is a bit gray in most discussions.

Now I'm wondering if we're discussing the same thing.

I can project myself onto Shepard, but I do agree that at no point do I consider myself to actually be the hero.

Is the failing for you that you cannot sufficiently place yourself as the protagonist? (just trying to reconcile all the different perspectives).

[batlin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think theres a difference between "my story" and feeling as if it were myself as the character. All stories I play, Shephard or the Warden were my own stories. Whether or not I play actor or director shouldn't really change that since it is I who is making the decisions. The question is, is it me? or is it the character I control? The more I feel I am the character, (as in the first person focus of DA:O) the more personal it is and I think the line between "my story" and "I'm actually the hero" is a bit gray in most discussions.

Now I'm wondering if we're discussing the same thing.

I can project myself onto Shepard, but I do agree that at no point do I consider myself to actually be the hero.

Is the failing for you that you cannot sufficiently place yourself as the protagonist? (just trying to reconcile all the different perspectives).

I think he means that while the Warden is an extension of ourselves, Shepard and Hawke are predefined characters who we point in the direction we want.

[DahliaLynn]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Now I'm wondering if we're discussing the same thing.

I can project myself onto Shepard, but I do agree that at no point do I consider myself to actually be the hero.

Is the failing for you that you cannot sufficiently place yourself as the protagonist? (just trying to reconcile all the different perspectives).

You Ninja'd my edit But I'm completely to blame. I have a habit of taking time to improve my posts

Indeed you are correct. I would like to be the protagonist. Controlling a protagonist i.e. projecting myself in various ways is definitely fun, but being him/her is a whole 'nother ballgame. It adds a personal dimension to it being an adventure I experienced -being thrown into a world where I am someone else. Similar to the virtual reality concept, only here it's a set story with choices you make as if you were thrown right into a movie as a character. I love that . I can feel for Hawke and Shephard, but I am the Warden.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think theres a difference between "my story" and feeling as if it were myself as the character. All stories I play, Shephard or the Warden were my own stories. Whether or not I play actor or director shouldn't really change that since it is I who is making the decisions. The question is, is it me? or is it the character I control? The more I feel I am the character, (as in the first person focus of DA:O) the more personal it is and I think the line between "my story" and "I'm actually the hero" is a bit gray in most discussions.

Now I'm wondering if we're discussing the same thing.

I can project myself onto Shepard, but I do agree that at no point do I consider myself to actually be the hero.

Is the failing for you that you cannot sufficiently place yourself as the protagonist? (just trying to reconcile all the different perspectives).

I've argued before the the core of roleplaying is seeing the world through someone else's eyes.  Never does ME or DA2 allow me to perceive the game's setting through Shepard or Hawke's eyes, because I don't know enough about Shepard or Hawke to fully assume their perspectives.

I know how my Warden feels about some random NPC, so I perceive that NPC's actions with that bias in place.  But I clearly don't know how Hawke feels, because I don't understand why he says the things he says.  As such, Hawke's unique perspective is denied me.

[jillabender]

Allan Schumacher wrote…

Now I'm wondering if we're discussing the same thing.

I can project myself onto Shepard, but I do agree that at no point do I consider myself to actually be the hero.

Is the failing for you that you cannot sufficiently place yourself as the protagonist? (just trying to reconcile all the different perspectives).

Personally, I do feel a sense of ownership toward Shepard, but it's different from the ownership that I feel toward my Wardens.

In DA:O, I feel as though I'm an actor stepping into the role of a character that I created to fit into the story. The fact that some things about my character are pre-determined doesn't take away from that for me, because I see the backstories, situations, and dialogue that the game provides for my character as starting points for me to build on as I'm imagining that character.

In Mass Effect, I feel as though I'm directing a character that someone else created. I can understand and empathize with Shepard, and I can care about the impact of his or her choices, but I don't ever truly feel that I'm stepping into the role of Shepard, and that, for me, is the difference.

I enjoy both games, and I agree that both games offer meaningful player agency (albeit in different ways), but the ownership that you and others describe themselves as having toward Shepard sounds to me like something quite different from what I feel toward my Wardens.

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

I know how my Warden feels about some random NPC, so I perceive that NPC's actions with that bias in place. But I clearly don't know how Hawke feels, because I don't understand why he says the things he says. As such, Hawke's unique perspective is denied me.

I felt much the same about Hawke – I found that Hawke wasn't fleshed out enough as a character to allow me to fill in the gaps when it came to his or her reactions and thought processes.

Modifié par jillabender, 11 juillet 2012 - 01:35 .

[deatharmonic]

Allan Schumacher 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.

No disagreement here!

When discussing what makes a player feel like they have ownership of the character, this thread did remind me that many feel like Shepard is "their Shepard" in Mass Effect, in spite of voiced characters, cinematics, and even the dialogue wheel.

Obviously there's a divide somewhere. I find that interesting. Where is it? What allows some player that takes a character like Shepard and still feel as though it's the player's story, whereas another feels its too much of a pregen and a hurdle they must overcome in order to enjoy the game?

 

I think Hawke was thrown at us too abruptly, when you start the game its like BAM! everything is already established, your on the run, flung straight into combat with individuals you have no connection with. In DAO for instance (the human noble's origin) we get to walk around, talk to those around us, experience life before the game really kicks in, we are able to establish a connection with the other npcs so when your parents die it means so much more and for me provided motivation for my character to seek revenge. which made the story and character more personal... compared to DA2 when X or Y die it doesn't feel personal at all because you hardly know them, so straight from the beginning there is a disconnect. 

If the player was able to experience life in lothering before the initial action like in DAO then that could have given us the chance to establish/define relationships and build character by walking around, interacting and experiencing various events in town in which we determine how our character behaves thus building ownership. Now with mass effect of course they had the option of choosing between the preset backgrounds which did add to a sense of ownership. Although ultimately i feel as though there was more control in ME1/2 with the behaviour options we were given.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

deatharmonic wrote...

I think Hawke was thrown at us too abruptly, when you start the game its like BAM! everything is already established, your on the run, flung straight into combat with individuals you have no connection with.

I would agree with that.  Because DA2 jumps right into the action (which I understand was done intentionally to draw new players into the game before making them deal with character creation), we don't have a chance to find our feet (with a new character we've never played before) before being asked to make important decisions for him.

[DahliaLynn]

Brockololly wrote...

... you'd often hear people that complained of DAO's cinematics that the Warden would often just sit there blank faced. I think thats partly a failing of sticking to their cinematic guidelines and not playing by the ground rules they seemingly had in keeping most views of the Warden over the shoulder or more POV type shots.I think its very possible to do a game like DA:O with an unvoiced PC but you just need to not try and cram in techniques that would work better with a voiced PC.

I think that was the main reason for the complaints of seeing a "blank faced " Warden, which could possibly have lead to people's complaints about silent protagonists. Had they stuck to the over-the-shoulder without using the occasional Warden "reaction" shot, although it looks logical cinematically it probably would have been more effective to remain on the NPC whenever possible, and there would have been less blank Warden/Silent protagonist complaining.

Whenever I create a modded scene, it's incredibly difficult for me to show the Warden without suggesting emotion while maintaining a certain degree of realism. I have to avoid making emotional decisions for the player with facial reactions, and the results don't usually work well from a cinematic perspective. The only reason I can get away with it is because the player is already used to a neutral look for their PC, so this sort of thing can be forgiven. But I guess in the end, it just doesn't "look" good, though I don't mind the sacrifice as a player if it means keeping more of a first person perspective.

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 10 juillet 2012 - 10:32 .

[jillabender]

DahliaLynn wrote…

Had they stuck to the over-the-shoulder without using the occasional Warden "reaction" shot, although it looks logical cinematically it probably would have been more effective to remain on the NPC whenever possible.

Whenever I create a modded scene, it's incredibly difficult for me to show the Warden without suggesting emotion while maintaining a certain degree of realism. I have to avoid making emotional decisions for the player with facial reactions, and the results don't usually work well from a cinematic perspective. The only reason I can get away with it is because the player is already used to a neutral look for their PC, so this sort of thing can be forgiven. But I guess in the end, it just doesn't "look" good, though I don't mind the sacrifice as a player if it means keeping more of a first person perspective.

That's a great observation – it's true that DA:O didn't always find the right balance between what looks good cinematically and what allows for a consistent perspective. For the most part, I think the game struck a good balance, but there are some moments that do feel a bit awkward, for the reasons you mentioned. It's probably the only thing that I found to be a slight disadvantage of DA:O's style of story-telling. But, like you, I'm willing to forgive it in order to enjoy all the things that I love about the game.

Modifié par jillabender, 10 juillet 2012 - 10:38 .