184 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelStuart]

Giltspur wrote...
One reason it helps to have stats control combat effectivess in a real-time, party-based game is that one person controlling a game can't control four characters as well as he could one.  So you've got to 'outsource' some of the combat.  Stats are a way to do that.  That way you can focus on spells, targeting and positioning, which is still enough work that you're likely to pause a lot.  Adding in aiming and dodging might just end up being too much work for a party.  In JE, it worked becase you didn't really have a party.  You had a companion that mostly just was there to provide you a combat bonus.

I believe most people are more than capable controlling their character while issuing orders to the party.
But I could wrong, as I'm use to having to do multiple thing while playing games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Including move orders to specific points? I don't see how you could accurately target AoE attacks from multiple characters simultaneously. Especially with Friendly Fire.

But more than that, I don't see why I would want to. I'd rather just pause the game and avoid all that frantic clicking. Playing games should be fun - they should not induce panic.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Including move orders to specific points? I don't see how you could accurately target AoE attacks from multiple characters simultaneously. Especially with Friendly Fire.

But more than that, I don't see why I would want to. I'd rather just pause the game and avoid all that frantic clicking. Playing games should be fun - they should not induce panic.

I don't need to do it simultaneously, I just need to quickly do it all before the enemy does thiers.

As for why I want to play a game that keeps me on my toes. Its because I injoy it. 
The enemies in both Dragon Age games were far do slow for me.

[Swordfishtrombone]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Did the priest fail because the game fail a dice roll or because the enemy outsmarted you? either one would require you plan for failure.

If you believe that action games is just a test of finger dexterity, than I only surmise that you have not played many action games.
Any descent action game requires you out think your enemy. If you just stand there hitting the attack button, you are going to get killed quickly. You have move around the battlefield, force your enemy to drop there guard, all while defending your self and making sure enemies don't suround you.
You will be doing all this will giving orders to your companions.

First, even real life battles include an element of unpredictability that is not due to the enemy outsmarting you - there are random events, and unpredictable circumstances.

In my scenario, if the priest failed, it'll be due to an unlucky roll of the dice - but a weighed dice. A Dice weighed by ME, to increase the probability of a successful throw. Had I not done the right preparations, I would be far more likely to fail.

This random element does in no way remove, or even diminish the importance of skill and tactical thinking. The unskilled player, even with a streak of lucky dice throws, will not do as well as the skilled player with a run of bad throws.

And I do not have the false belief that action games are JUST finger dexterity tests - but finger dexterity is a REQUIREMENT for doing well in an action game where you manually execute the moves. And that is a requirement I do not like. That is a requirement that makes the game a not so enjoyable experience for me.

And, as I said, isn't there room in the world for at least some games which cater to the traditional cRPG fan? Thus far, at least, I've been able to trust Bioware's games in that this sort of dexterity isn't (or is only rarely) asked for.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

The enemies in both Dragon Age games were far do slow for me.

Whereas I think the speed of DAO's combat was just about perfect.  And if I could only control one character directly, I'd still prefer not to exceed NWN's combat speed.

[Cimeas]

Going back on topic, I think Sylvius and I will have to agree to disagree as it were, I think I personally have figured out what made JE's combat special.

I'm just replaying the game now (having over the past month or so done a complete playthrough of DA:O, DA:A and DA2) and I find myself genuinely looking forward to most combats. I love the fact that in DA:O, key fights require tactics. There is genuine thrill in lining up those perfect AOEs, stealth attacks, and pressing spacebar and unleashing terror, then seeing how the fight develops, adjusting your tactics, and moving on.  However for standard encounters, I didn't look forward to pausing, setting up tactics, and executing.

It just felt terribly boring. So even though those set piece fights were fantastic, the majority of fights were me pressing pause, putting an AOE here, a stealth attack there, activating some tank skills, pressing space, and letting it all play out. I found myself, especially in longer dungeons like the Temple of Andraste or the Deep Roads in DA:O/DA2, actually opening the map, seeing how far it was to my destination, and sighing because I knew the boredom that lay ahead.

Maybe its the fact that in Jade Empire there's actually LESS combat than DA/ME, maybe it's the fact that the active dodging/aiming adds unpredictability, but I love combat. Switching between forms, seeing those visual cues, unleashing AOEs and building combos, switching to the chi-drain form, effortlessly transferring mana to health without need for clunky health potions. Jade Empire, if it was refined, would have had an exceptional combat system.

Modifié par Cimeas, 15 juillet 2012 - 10:01 .

[MichaelStuart]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Did the priest fail because the game fail a dice roll or because the enemy outsmarted you? either one would require you plan for failure.

If you believe that action games is just a test of finger dexterity, than I only surmise that you have not played many action games.
Any descent action game requires you out think your enemy. If you just stand there hitting the attack button, you are going to get killed quickly. You have move around the battlefield, force your enemy to drop there guard, all while defending your self and making sure enemies don't suround you.
You will be doing all this will giving orders to your companions.

First, even real life battles include an element of unpredictability that is not due to the enemy outsmarting you - there are random events, and unpredictable circumstances.

In my scenario, if the priest failed, it'll be due to an unlucky roll of the dice - but a weighed dice. A Dice weighed by ME, to increase the probability of a successful throw. Had I not done the right preparations, I would be far more likely to fail.

This random element does in no way remove, or even diminish the importance of skill and tactical thinking. The unskilled player, even with a streak of lucky dice throws, will not do as well as the skilled player with a run of bad throws.

And I do not have the false belief that action games are JUST finger dexterity tests - but finger dexterity is a REQUIREMENT for doing well in an action game where you manually execute the moves. And that is a requirement I do not like. That is a requirement that makes the game a not so enjoyable experience for me.

And, as I said, isn't there room in the world for at least some games which cater to the traditional cRPG fan? Thus far, at least, I've been able to trust Bioware's games in that this sort of dexterity isn't (or is only rarely) asked for.

I don't deny that it takes skill to tip the odds, but in the end it would still be luck that determines if I fail or succeed.
Skill (mine or the enemy's) should always what determines success.

As for your dislike of manually button pressing, this can be easly solved by having a enemy speed option.
     

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

But it doesn't make any logical sense.

The player character is meant to be my avater in the game world.

No, he isn't.  He's a person is his own right.

If he were an avatar of the player (as you see in shooters and many other games), then your reasoning would apply, but the PC in a roleplaying game is not merely an avatar.  He's a person within a (hopefully) coherent setting.

In most games, theg ame environment is never anything more than simply a game environment.  It exists to entertain you, the player.  You move through it using your avatar, and the game environment responds to you.

That's not something I have any interest in doing.

In a roleplaying game (which I have argued many times before are not strictly games at all), the world exists not to entertain the player, but as a place for the characters to live their lives.  The player's input involves controlling the mind of his character.  The character's decisions and thought processes are where the player plays.

And yet I have tell the Grey Warden, the Sprint Monk, Hawke, Shepard, Reven, and the PCs I've played in various other RPGs what weapon, spell, power, etc to use, which enemy to attack, when to heal, . If I don't they will die. My skills in DA:O and ME1 don't matter as much as the luck of the dice. Which in MY PERSONAL OPINION is stupid for a video game, if I want that I could go out and buy a Pen and Paper RPG.

I think that would make combat boring.  Having some randomness allows the player to create better stories by attempting high-risk high-reward strategies or tactics.  If there were no randomness, then the player would always know what was going to work and what wouldn't.

When I'm in a battle in any video game my thought is how do I win this battle and move on? Combat is not about stories to me.  

[Swordfishtrombone]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Did the priest fail because the game fail a dice roll or because the enemy outsmarted you? either one would require you plan for failure.

If you believe that action games is just a test of finger dexterity, than I only surmise that you have not played many action games.
Any descent action game requires you out think your enemy. If you just stand there hitting the attack button, you are going to get killed quickly. You have move around the battlefield, force your enemy to drop there guard, all while defending your self and making sure enemies don't suround you.
You will be doing all this will giving orders to your companions.

First, even real life battles include an element of unpredictability that is not due to the enemy outsmarting you - there are random events, and unpredictable circumstances.

In my scenario, if the priest failed, it'll be due to an unlucky roll of the dice - but a weighed dice. A Dice weighed by ME, to increase the probability of a successful throw. Had I not done the right preparations, I would be far more likely to fail.

This random element does in no way remove, or even diminish the importance of skill and tactical thinking. The unskilled player, even with a streak of lucky dice throws, will not do as well as the skilled player with a run of bad throws.

And I do not have the false belief that action games are JUST finger dexterity tests - but finger dexterity is a REQUIREMENT for doing well in an action game where you manually execute the moves. And that is a requirement I do not like. That is a requirement that makes the game a not so enjoyable experience for me.

And, as I said, isn't there room in the world for at least some games which cater to the traditional cRPG fan? Thus far, at least, I've been able to trust Bioware's games in that this sort of dexterity isn't (or is only rarely) asked for.

I don't deny that it takes skill to tip the odds, but in the end it would still be luck that determines if I fail or succeed.
Skill (mine or the enemy's) should always what determines success.

As for your dislike of manually button pressing, this can be easly solved by having a enemy speed option.
     

Luck only determines the failure or success of single actions - like in my example, the attempt to one-shot-kill a tough opponent - NOT the outcome of a battle, which consists of a large enough number of decisions that skill wins out.

There really are very few games or circumstances in real life, that there's no random element, yet skill still manages to trump luck. Even in a game as structured and clearly defined as chess, there are occasions where chance events conspire to create unpredictable results - for example, in one game of chess I played, I was so focused on a very complex tactical situation on one part of the board, that I missed something completely obvious - I made a novice blunder, not noticing that my rook was hanging on the other side of the board. I noticed it immediately after I'd moved, and was already preparing to resign, when my opponent moved, and ALSO missed this obvious opportunity.

We were both distracted by the same tactical complexity, and both were far too skilled players to have made that serious a mistake in more than, say 1 game in a 1000, yet, by luck, I got off scott free. 

Even in a game where chance plays a role as large as it does in poker, you STILL regularly see the same faces at the top of the big poker tournaments, because streaks of "luck" and "bad luck" even out over time, and what remains is the skill.

That's just part of life. I do not see the sense in trying to eliminate chance from a game. For me, it brings a level of exitement into the game, that is not there absent the chance element.

As for slowing the game down, that's just not sufficient for me, I've found - I tried the witcher 2, which essentially has real-time combat, with the ability to bring up a menu with various combat options that slows down time while you are looking at the menu and selecting an action, but I STILL found it just... not for me. I tried to like it, especially given how great the developers of that game treat their fanbase, but just couldn't get over the combat.

So for me, it really is a deal-breaker, and I doubt that I'm the only one.

A game where you can pause the game, give orders to companions, then unpause, is a whole different beast, with an entirely different feel, than a "live action" game, even if you can slow things down.

[MichaelStuart]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Luck only determines the failure or success of single actions - like in my example, the attempt to one-shot-kill a tough opponent - NOT the outcome of a battle, which consists of a large enough number of decisions that skill wins out.

There really are very few games or circumstances in real life, that there's no random element, yet skill still manages to trump luck. Even in a game as structured and clearly defined as chess, there are occasions where chance events conspire to create unpredictable results - for example, in one game of chess I played, I was so focused on a very complex tactical situation on one part of the board, that I missed something completely obvious - I made a novice blunder, not noticing that my rook was hanging on the other side of the board. I noticed it immediately after I'd moved, and was already preparing to resign, when my opponent moved, and ALSO missed this obvious opportunity.

We were both distracted by the same tactical complexity, and both were far too skilled players to have made that serious a mistake in more than, say 1 game in a 1000, yet, by luck, I got off scott free. 

Even in a game where chance plays a role as large as it does in poker, you STILL regularly see the same faces at the top of the big poker tournaments, because streaks of "luck" and "bad luck" even out over time, and what remains is the skill.

That's just part of life. I do not see the sense in trying to eliminate chance from a game. For me, it brings a level of exitement into the game, that is not there absent the chance element.

As for slowing the game down, that's just not sufficient for me, I've found - I tried the witcher 2, which essentially has real-time combat, with the ability to bring up a menu with various combat options that slows down time while you are looking at the menu and selecting an action, but I STILL found it just... not for me. I tried to like it, especially given how great the developers of that game treat their fanbase, but just couldn't get over the combat.

So for me, it really is a deal-breaker, and I doubt that I'm the only one.

A game where you can pause the game, give orders to companions, then unpause, is a whole different beast, with an entirely different feel, than a "live action" game, even if you can slow things down.

That not what I call luck. I would just call that a case of your opponent messing up.

Now imagine if your opponent did see the rook, but before if your opponent could make their move, they had to role a die to see if they were allowed to even make that move.
That is what I go threw everytime I make an attack in Dragon Age.

This entire descussion could be solved if Bioware adds a VATS like system to Dragon Age 3
(and makes Jade Empire 2 and Ultima 10)
   

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 15 juillet 2012 - 11:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

As for your dislike of manually button pressing, this can be easly solved by having a enemy speed option.

That only solves the problem if I can set the enemy's speed to zero.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

As for your dislike of manually button pressing, this can be easly solved by having a enemy speed option.

That only solves the problem if I can set the enemy's speed to zero.

You want enemies to just stand there and do nothing?

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 16 juillet 2012 - 01:43 .

[Olmerto]

scyphozoa wrote...

I love JE combat. I still have fun with it to this day. I do wish Bioware would continue JE so they can have an active action RPG franchise, especially now that ME3 is wrapped up.

You are mistaken.  The Shepard trilogy is "wrapped up", but the ME series goes on.  Bioware have never stated that ME is done.

Nonetheless, your point about JE is well taken.  I certainly wouldn't want ACTION in a DA game.

[Swordfishtrombone]

MichaelStuart wrote...

That not what I call luck. I would just call that a case of your opponent messing up.

Now imagine if your opponent did see the rook, but before if your opponent could make their move, they had to role a die to see if they were allowed to even make that move.
That is what I go threw everytime I make an attack in Dragon Age.

This entire descussion could be solved if Bioware adds a VATS like system to Dragon Age 3
(and makes Jade Empire 2 and Ultima 10)

The "luck" bit is clearly in the fact that my opponent made an extremely rare and unlikely mistake at the very same time I made the same extremely rare and unlikely mistake.

If you think that our brain processes are not subject to random noise, then you are mistaken - what we see and do does have a degree chance to it.

And one could easily imagine a game like chess where you did have to roll a dice to see if you could make a particular move - that'd be a different game, but no less interesting for the introduction of an additional chance element.

The important part is that the chance element is small enough not to override the skill element. An element of chance in a game bring surprice and variety that would not be there without that element.

[Xewaka]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...
As for your dislike of manually button pressing, this can be easly solved by having a enemy speed option.

That only solves the problem if I can set the enemy's speed to zero.

You want enemies to just stand there and do nothing?

It's called a pause button.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...
As for your dislike of manually button pressing, this can be easly solved by having a enemy speed option.

That only solves the problem if I can set the enemy's speed to zero.

You want enemies to just stand there and do nothing?

It's called a pause button.

Give this man a prize.

Any time pressure is too much.

[AkiKishi]

MichaelStuart wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

But it doesn't make any logical sense.
The player character is meant to be my avater in the game world. logically my control over that avater should be absolute.
Combat is not meant to be phyiscal. Combat is always meant to reward quick thinking. If I am quick enough to see that a enemy is going to attack me, I should be rewarded by being able to avoid damage. The same should always apply to enemies as well.
Combat should always be won or lost by the skill of the player vs the skill of the enemy and never by who has the most luck. 


You can buy Jade empire off of Steam for £8.99   

It's something action RPGs do better. Actually Jade Empire does it. You have different characters some stronger and slower and others quicker and weaker. If everything came down to just how good the player was, then it would be an action game.

I don't have a problem with player characters or the enemies having advantages and disadvantages as these are just obstacles that player skill can negate.
My problem with having an attacks success determind by luck is that it makes player skill redundant.
 

There are rarely times when player skill is redundant, it takes a really large difference in character to enemy level to get to that point.
Probably the most difficult battle I've had was in FF:Crystal. It invovled hitting a boss that could one shot me 300 times.
If I'd have actually taken the time to grind out another 50 or so levels that boss would have been a cake walk.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I don't have a problem with player characters or the enemies having advantages and disadvantages as these are just obstacles that player skill can negate.

This sentence explains quite clearly why we disagree.  You're looking at the in-game content as existing for the player's benefit.  The combat is a challenge for the player.

I think that's entirely the wrong way to look at a roleplaying game.  The challenge for the player is the roleplaying itself.  The combat is a challenge for the character, and that challenge creates more opportunities for roleplaying (by creating more and different decision-making events).

[MichaelStuart]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

That not what I call luck. I would just call that a case of your opponent messing up.

Now imagine if your opponent did see the rook, but before if your opponent could make their move, they had to role a die to see if they were allowed to even make that move.
That is what I go threw everytime I make an attack in Dragon Age.

This entire descussion could be solved if Bioware adds a VATS like system to Dragon Age 3
(and makes Jade Empire 2 and Ultima 10)

The "luck" bit is clearly in the fact that my opponent made an extremely rare and unlikely mistake at the very same time I made the same extremely rare and unlikely mistake.

If you think that our brain processes are not subject to random noise, then you are mistaken - what we see and do does have a degree chance to it.

And one could easily imagine a game like chess where you did have to roll a dice to see if you could make a particular move - that'd be a different game, but no less interesting for the introduction of an additional chance element.

The important part is that the chance element is small enough not to override the skill element. An element of chance in a game bring surprice and variety that would not be there without that element.

There was no luck, it was a game of skill and your opponent fail to use that skill.
Its was fortunate for you, but the fortune was purely because your opponent wasn't paying attention and not because the machanics of the universe decided that your opponent had a one in a million chance of failure.

I don't deny that the brain is subject to stimuli beyond our control, were only human after all, but I maintain that all distractions can be negated by skill.
Ican happily play a game were the enemies, loud noises and amount of light are randomly determined, but when the success of moves made by my character is random, that when a game stops being fun.    

If you are worried that removing luck determined attacks will lead to stale predictable combat, no need.
Everyone will fail at some point. We will fail because we were not playing at our best, or the enemies were just better than us.

[Cimeas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

snip.

Hmm, I think I see where we find out differences then.  You see RPGs as not really games at all, but rather challenges in terms of 'can I create a character, roleplay as them successfully and enjoy the journey'.    I, on the other hand, consider them games like all others.  I am following a story, playing a character, some elements of which I can customize, others not, and making key decisions that determine the outcomes of various small and large conflicts. differentiating my character from everyone else's.   

The thing is Sylvius, according to your definition, I just don't think there are ANY RPGs like that.  Even DA:O had lots of set characters.  For example, in the City Elf origin, you ALWAYS were getting married to that one person.   You never had choice to attack Duncan, and in Baldur's Gate you could never say 'screw saving Irenicus (?), I'm going home'. 

RPGs can never be 'pure' in the way you want them to be.   What you want to do is basically write your own story in the game world, with absolute control over everything your character does.   There are games, such as Skyrim, in which your character isn't defined by anything, in which you create their background, story etc...   If you want to roleplay convincingly, I suggest joining an MMO on a Roleplaying Server, in which you can create backstory, your character never speaks, and there are thousands of others to build stories with, free from the political talk that other MMO servers have.

However a Bioware RPG is a hybrid between the RPGs that you like and a linear action game.   There are *some* choices, other elements are set in stone.    Some things will always happen, your friends in BG2 will ALWAYS be kidnapped for example.   However others, whether I become king or Alistair does, are choices I can make.

Instead of me writing a book, it's more like doing a 'Choose Your Adventure' book with a previously set protagonist.   You're not writing your story, you choose from three or four paths available to you. 

In another thread, Sylvius, you say  "Hawke behaves in a way that contradicts the motives I've already assigned him."

Well that's your fault for creating a character first, and playing the game second.   Develop his/her ideas WHEN the game calls on your to develop them.   If Bioware says your character doesn't like spiders, he doesn't like spiders- case closed.   Instead of saying 'Hawke likes chocolate, oranges and apples, but he hates pie, cake and cookies' and then when the three options are 'Do you like Pie, Cake or Cookies' you complain, what you could do is not decide what he likes from the outset, but figure it out when you get there.

So when you start the game, perhaps say 'I want my Hawke to be generally good, but still care about money.'   Do not decide your position on every single development and facet of the game world.  Instead, when your character comes to the decision, THEN decide 'you know what, I think he would prefer cookies, since his father was a baker and he got sick of eating cake every evening for desert'.  AND IF, LATER IN THE GAME, Bioware says that Hawke's father was actually a Chimneysweep, accept it and move on.  They have creative control, but they cannot rein in your imagination.  Some elements must be decided.

TL;DR

Maybe that's not perfect, but that's how you're meant to play these kind of game, or I'm pretty sure it is, anyway. Make the decisions WHEN you get there, not in advance.

Modifié par Cimeas, 16 juillet 2012 - 11:53 .

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I don't have a problem with player characters or the enemies having advantages and disadvantages as these are just obstacles that player skill can negate.

This sentence explains quite clearly why we disagree.  You're looking at the in-game content as existing for the player's benefit.  The combat is a challenge for the player.

I think that's entirely the wrong way to look at a roleplaying game.  The challenge for the player is the roleplaying itself.  The combat is a challenge for the character, and that challenge creates more opportunities for roleplaying (by creating more and different decision-making events).

Please correct me if I'm wrong

What I think your saying is that RPG's should play like The Sims
That the Role of the player is not to be a character in the game world, but to guide characters threw their life in the game world.

If this what you mean, than I can't agree with you.
To me the appeal of these games is being able to interact and explore these worlds of fantasy,
You can completely remove combat from the game and replace it with ten minutes videos of watching grass grow. I would still play the game as long as I could play a character.

[Cimeas]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I don't have a problem with player characters or the enemies having advantages and disadvantages as these are just obstacles that player skill can negate.

This sentence explains quite clearly why we disagree.  You're looking at the in-game content as existing for the player's benefit.  The combat is a challenge for the player.

I think that's entirely the wrong way to look at a roleplaying game.  The challenge for the player is the roleplaying itself.  The combat is a challenge for the character, and that challenge creates more opportunities for roleplaying (by creating more and different decision-making events).

Please correct me if I'm wrong

What I think your saying is that RPG's should play like The Sims
That the Role of the player is not to be a character in the game world, but to guide characters threw their life in the game world.

If this what you mean, than I can't agree with you.
To me the appeal of these games is being able to interact and explore these worlds of fantasy,
You can completely remove combat from the game and replace it with ten minutes videos of watching grass grow. I would still play the game as long as I could play a character.

I would agree.   Anyway I'm off to play some more JE, I will be back when Sylvius replies for more interesting debate. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

snip.

Hmm, I think I see where we find out differences then.  You see RPGs as not really games at all, but rather challenges in terms of 'can I create a character, roleplay as them successfully and enjoy the journey'.    I, on the other hand, consider them games like all others.  I am following a story, playing a character, some elements of which I can customize, others not, and making key decisions that determine the outcomes of various small and large conflicts. differentiating my character from everyone else's.   

The thing is Sylvius, according to your definition, I just don't think there are ANY RPGs like that.  Even DA:O had lots of set characters.  For example, in the City Elf origin, you ALWAYS were getting married to that one person.   You never had choice to attack Duncan, and in Baldur's Gate you could never say 'screw saving Irenicus (?), I'm going home'. 

RPGs can never be 'pure' in the way you want them to be.   What you want to do is basically write your own story in the game world, with absolute control over everything your character does.   There are games, such as Skyrim, in which your character isn't defined by anything, in which you create their background, story etc...   If you want to roleplay convincingly, I suggest joining an MMO on a Roleplaying Server, in which you can create backstory, your character never speaks, and there are thousands of others to build stories with, free from the political talk that other MMO servers have.

You're conflating freedom and control.  I'm not asking for freedom - only control.  I'm well aware that CRPGs can't offer freedom.  I do want absolute control over what my character does, but that doesn't mean I'm demanding the freedom to have him do anything at all.

You're saying I can't have control, and then you're trying to demnstrate that by showing limits to my freedom.  Those aren't the same thing.

There are limits within any CRPG, yes, but the player can deisgn around those limits.  The problem with DA2 and the ME games is that those limits are kept hidden from the player until it's too late.

In another thread, Sylvius, you say  "Hawke behaves in a way that contradicts the motives I've already assigned him."

Well that's your fault for creating a character first, and playing the game second.   Develop his/her ideas WHEN the game calls on your to develop them.   If Bioware says your character doesn't like spiders, he doesn't like spiders- case closed.   Instead of saying 'Hawke likes chocolate, oranges and apples, but he hates pie, cake and cookies' and then when the three options are 'Do you like Pie, Cake or Cookies' you complain, what you could do is not decide what he likes from the outset, but figure it out when you get there.

But what about when the game asks me to make a decision for him?  In DAO, there's a greedy merchant in Lothering.  I can choose to help him or hinder him, but in order to do that I need to know why I do either.  If I assign the Warden a motive for helping him (either right then or earlier), the game could still contradict me later if I'm not permitted to control what the character says or does.

DA2 makes this mistake often.  I'll be completing a quest, and I'll have assigned my character a motive for doing so (because if I don't know why my character is doing something then I wouldn't bother having my character do that thing), and then the spoken dialogue will explain why Hawke is doing something at it will be wrong.

After the PC has undertaken the action is too late to tell the player what the PC's motives are.  If I have to decide whether to accept or complete a quest, then I need a reason to do that - a reason that makes sense for my character.  Simply jumping through the hoops because they are there is not sufficient.

So when you start the game, perhaps say 'I want my Hawke to be generally good, but still care about money.'   Do not decide your position on every single development and facet of the game world.  Instead, when your character comes to the decision, THEN decide 'you know what, I think he would prefer cookies, since his father was a baker and he got sick of eating cake every evening for desert'.  AND IF, LATER IN THE GAME, Bioware says that Hawke's father was actually a Chimneysweep, accept it and move on.  They have creative control, but they cannot rein in your imagination.  Some elements must be decided.

I obviously can't decide things about the other characters.  But I should be able to decide how the PC feels.

And I cannot then accept BioWare's corrections and move on, because their corrections might invalidate some of my earlier choices.  BioWare's revisions might change Hawke such that he would have chosen something different in the previous act, or even just a few lines earlier in the conversation.  From that moment on, Hawke is broken, even if I let them make those decisions.  I am not going to play an internally inconsistent character.

Maybe that's not perfect, but that's how you're meant to play these kind of game, or I'm pretty sure it is, anyway. Make the decisions WHEN you get there, not in advance.

DA2 doesn't let us make the decisions at all.  That's the problem.  If we could see what it was we were choosing, then we could avoid those character-breaking lines.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Please correct me if I'm wrong

What I think your saying is that RPG's should play like The Sims
That the Role of the player is not to be a character in the game world, but to guide characters threw their life in the game world.

Not quite.  I think the characters should guide themselves.  The player creates those characters, assigns them characteristics, populates their minds, and then sets them loose to see what happens.

The player's moment-to-moment responsibilities within the game are to issue instructions that are consistent with his design for that character.

Having the player be the character limits what sorts of characters the player can play, because the character will be constrained by the player's limitations.  In the game you describe, the player would be expected to make real-time decisions for his character, but that isn't going to work if the way the character thinks is meaningfulluy different from how the player thinks.  If the player does not have an intuitive understanding of non-Euclidean geometry, then he can't play a character who does because he can't make the geometric approximations quickly enough to mimic those his designed character could.

If this what you mean, than I can't agree with you.
To me the appeal of these games is being able to interact and explore these worlds of fantasy,

To me, the appeal of these games is being able to watch my character interact with and explore these worlds.  That way I can experience each game multiple times by designing different sorts of characters.