280 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

jillabender wrote...
Personally, I would need to know more about how Hawke is changed as a person by the events around him, and about how he or she is motivated to act the way he or she does, to really feel invested in the character. I suppose I could use my imagination to provide those details, but somehow, I'm just not motivated to do that when I don't have the freedom to imagine the character's personality and demeanour for myself. But maybe that's just me.

It isn't just you.  The authored narrative frequently was in conflict with the Hawke I thought I was playing, to the point where I didn't feel like I understood the character.  It is difficult to get invested in a character under those circumstances.

[LinksOcarina]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

jillabender wrote...
Personally, I would need to know more about how Hawke is changed as a person by the events around him, and about how he or she is motivated to act the way he or she does, to really feel invested in the character. I suppose I could use my imagination to provide those details, but somehow, I'm just not motivated to do that when I don't have the freedom to imagine the character's personality and demeanour for myself. But maybe that's just me.

It isn't just you.  The authored narrative frequently was in conflict with the Hawke I thought I was playing, to the point where I didn't feel like I understood the character.  It is difficult to get invested in a character under those circumstances.

Its funny, but I never had that problem. One example is having a pro-mage hawke, seeing your mother killed by Quention can change that. Or maybe the events with Ketojan or Sister Petrice put you over the edge? Or maybe your love for Fenris or Sebastian in the end make you turn.

It goes both ways too. I mean, those are some examples I can think of. I admit on my first playthough, Hawkes personality went from kind and generous, to more agressive and somber as the game went on for me, to the point where I enjoyed the experience to see Hawke grow as a character.

[Jerrybnsn]

LinksOcarina wrote...
 I admit on my first playthough, Hawkes personality went from kind and generous, to more agressive and somber as the game went on for me, to the point where I enjoyed the experience to see Hawke grow as a character.

That is one great thing about having a VO.  After playing a Hawke that was very aggressive, I couldn't wait to start up a Hawke that was snarky to see how he would be different.  Cinematic games do have a place and big fans in the gaming industry.  I did like the ME series (except the beginning and ending of 3) because I could direct Shepard and felt like I was in charge of directing a sci-fi TV show.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Insist all you like, it doesn't make you correct. Mechanically the characters serve the same function as an avatar to the story being told by BioWare. The player just chooses how the story is told.

If that's how you play them, then yes, that's all they are.

DA2's problem is that it forces that playstyle on everyone.

See, games like Fallout had a main storyline, yes, but it became negligable in the end because there was much deviation from the storyline to the point of it being, well, pointless. Arcanum was the same way, as were the Elder Scroll games and some of the Ultima titles.But you can't do that in Baldur's Gate, no matter how hard you try. You do not deviate from the main storyline at all,  Mechanically, you are following the story put forth by BioWare, using BioWares character as they go to a pre-determined endpoint that rarely, if ever, changes the storyline (Origins and to an extant Dragon Age II and Neverwinter Nights had deviations based on choices, but that was it.)

You've made several mistakes here, mostly in the form of presupposing your conclusion.

What do you think the storyline is in Baldur's Gate?  I can think of several completely different storylines that are all compatible with the in-game events.  And what is the endpoint?  If you presuppose that BioWare's narrative is the only narrative in the game, then yes, that narrative always ends in the same place.  But if we don't presuppose that, there are many different places the story can lead.

I don't even accept that there is a "main storyline".  The story is created by my character's thoughts and actions.  Each playthrough is potentially a very different story as long as I'm in control of those thoughts and actions.

But in DA2, I'm not.

You are right the player has control of the character, but it was only control of their actions, and in some cases, motivations within the confines of the storyline.

Those motivations are the story. 

It was not control of BioWare's story, that rarely changes in terms of its outcome,

 
See?  Again you're presupposing that BioWare's story is the only story.  BioWare's story isn't the story at all.  BioWare's story merely fleshes out the setting.  Providing the setting is all BioWare does.

That is a fundamental crux of the gameplay mechanics, and is pretty much the defining style that BioWare has used since Baldurs Gate.

You're describing a possible playstyle, and then claming that because all of the games support that playstyle that all of the games are relevantly similar.  And in that regad, they are.  But that's not the only important regard.

I'm showing you a completely different (and arguably wholly incompatible) playstyle that was supported by BioWare's games until they started voicing the protagonist, but isn't now.  That's the difference that matters to me.  You can't simply deny that the difference exists by pointing out an unrelated similarity.

As an aside, from a developer point of view Skyrim is teriffic. That doesn't make it good.

I didn't claim Skyrim was good.  I claimed Skyrim had a characteristic BioWare would likely value in its own games (market success).  You had suggested that a silent protagonist game might "not work anymore", so I pointed to games where it clearly did in the way that BIoWare would care about their game working.

[Pasquale1234]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Its funny, but I never had that problem.

Which says one of two things about how you played the game:
1) You didn't design any personality, morality, value system, motives, other traits, or expectations for your protag but simply accept whatever the game seems to give you, OR
2) You happened to land on a character definition and set of choices throughout the game that was compatible with your character design.

For my attempted plays, the dialogue often had Hawke stating motives that were contrary to my design and expectations, and behaving in ways that were out of character with who I understood Hawke to be.

When I play an RPG, I don't want to push a button and see what happens.  My goal is not to "beat the game", but to role-play the character, and if/when I reach a point where there are no in-character options for the protag, I might end that playthrough.  The setting and story serve only as a backdrop or mechanic for role-play; I am much more interested in actively co-creating the story and emergent narrative than observing the authored narrative.

The cinematic-voiced protag-paraphrased-dialogue wheel mechanics of DA2 imposed severe limits on that form of role-play, and the only character(s) anyone can possibly role-play in DA2 are characters that were specifically conceived and accommodated in the authored narrative.  Previous BioWare titles provided much greater latitude and more ambiguity RE the protag, which supported a more open-ended playstyle.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You've made several mistakes here, mostly in the form of presupposing your conclusion.

What do you think the storyline is in Baldur's Gate?  I can think of several completely different storylines that are all compatible with the in-game events.  And what is the endpoint?  If you presuppose that BioWare's narrative is the only narrative in the game, then yes, that narrative always ends in the same place.  But if we don't presuppose that, there are many different places the story can lead.

I don't even accept that there is a "main storyline".  The story is created by my character's thoughts and actions.  Each playthrough is potentially a very different story as long as I'm in control of those thoughts and actions.

But in DA2, I'm not.

See?  Again you're presupposing that BioWare's story is the only story.  BioWare's story isn't the story at all.  BioWare's story merely fleshes out the setting.  Providing the setting is all BioWare does.

You're describing a possible playstyle, and then claming that because all of the games support that playstyle that all of the games are relevantly similar.  And in that regad, they are.  But that's not the only important regard.

I'm showing you a completely different (and arguably wholly incompatible) playstyle that was supported by BioWare's games until they started voicing the protagonist, but isn't now.  That's the difference that matters to me.  You can't simply deny that the difference exists by pointing out an unrelated similarity.

BioWare's story is the reason for the setting existing. If it was not the main crux of the game, then BioWare storylines would be all like Skyrim, where you can go anywhere, do anything, fight anyone, and so forth. 

There is no presupposition here, unless if you are making a headcannon to what the ending to the game really is. The storyline of Baldurs Gate, for example always has the endpoint of killing Sarevok. He is always involved with the iron shortage and clears up the mines, always joins up with the Flaming Fists, always charged for murder of the Iron Throne leaders. How do you presuppose the ending to those plot threads, when they all inter-connect with each other in the narrative? Do you skip one over and not get involved? Do you accept being framed or the fact that you got caught for murder? Do you even get the chance to side with Sarevok at all, or is he always the bad guy because he killed Gorion? 

You may change those events in-game to alter the main storyline, such as actually killing the leaders of the Iron Throne, in siding with Xzar and Monty or Khalid and Jaheria (or keeping it secret from both, somehow, I never was able to do that.) during the iron mines, on recruiting Edwin or Minsc depending on the resolution of their questlines, and so forth. That is the part where the "main storyline" is changed by the player. But it all falls under the main storyline irregardless to the players actions. And those are just some examples off the top of my head. 

If anything, you as a player is bound by the will of the story, other than to stop playing your characters "life" based on that said story. And Baldurs Gate is one example.

See, what I am describing is a mechanic of the games as they are, which is indesputable. How you handle the events in your mind is your own business, and I know how you handle it, so I won't dispute or tell you what is right or not. The problem, is that you are missing the point about the mechanics as they are set up; the playstyle you describe is wholly incompatible, and has always been incompatible, because of the nature of the character ownership being both yours and BioWares, and because the story trumps the role-playing at critical moments in-game. It's not that it is a valid way of playing, it's just that BioWare games have never made it valid to begin with, and to suddenly see a influx of people saying they lost control of their character makes me shake my head. 

So it doesn't matter if you think there is no main storyline, it doesn't change the fact that the game is designed to follow one, and the entire experience is pretty much built around it. Unlike Elder Scrolls which has a main storyline but its not the focus of the character and their actions at all, so it leads to a more immersive and "true role-playing" experience. If you found something out of those games that lets you do that, good, man, more power to you. But it was always a story-driven experience vs a power fantasy when I play a BioWare game, and going in knowing that doesn't detract from the role-playing for me, voiced or voiceless.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 août 2012 - 09:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...



BioWare's story is the reason for the setting existing.

The setting exists.  Any conclusion beyond that is baseless.

Even with the same events (and I maintain that BioWare's earlier games allowed us considerable freedom to establish different events, but bear with me), how those events are framed can change the story very much.  Is Hawke's story a struggle of him against the establishment, or is he struggling against widepsread ignorance, or is he a helpless pawn, or is he a manupulative power-hungry schemer who uses others for his own ends?

We're not just stuck with BioWare's story.

If it was not the main crux of the game, then BioWare storylines would be all like Skyrim, where you can go anywhere, do anything, fight anyone, and so forth.

Correlation does not equal causation.

There is no presupposition here, unless if you are making a headcannon to what the ending to the game really is.

Now you're incorrectly assuming an excluded middle, where if I don't accept BioWare's endpoint then I must have a different one in mind.

The storyline of Baldurs Gate, for example always has the endpoint of killing Sarevok. He is always involved with the iron shortage and clears up the mines, always joins up with the Flaming Fists, always charged for murder of the Iron Throne leaders.

But is that always part of one coherent story, or are those seemingly unrelated events?  Does the Bhaalspawn seek out his attacker or does he run and hide?  Does he know that the iron shortage is related to Sarevok?  Does he suspect?
 
And you've completely discounted the possibility of the Bhaalspawn not surviving to the so-called end.

How do you presuppose the ending to those plot threads, when they all inter-connect with each other in the narrative? Do you skip one over and not get involved? Do you accept being framed or the fact that you got caught for murder? Do you even get the chance to side with Sarevok at all, or is he always the bad guy because he killed Gorion?

If you want to be told a story, then you'll see a story being told at you.  That's great.  That way the game gives you what you want.

But I don't want to be told a story, and BiOWare's earlier games allowed me to create my own.  That's been taken away.

You still don't get it.  I'm not claiming that the games can't be played your way.  I'm claiming they used to be able to be played my way.

If anything, you as a player is bound by the will of the story, other than to stop playing your characters "life" based on that said story. And Baldurs Gate is one example.

The player is bound by the scope of the setting.  Nothing more.

See, what I am describing is a mechanic of the games as they are, which is indesputable. How you handle the events in your mind is your own business, and I know how you handle it, so I won't dispute or tell you what is right or not. The problem, is that you are missing the point about the mechanics as they are set up; the playstyle you describe is wholly incompatible, and has always been incompatible, because of the nature of the character ownership being both yours and BioWares, and because the story trumps the role-playing at critical moments in-game. It's not that it is a valid way of playing, it's just that BioWare games have never made it valid to begin with, and to suddenly see a influx of people saying they lost control of their character makes me shake my head.

What do you mean by "valid"?

It was a possible way of playing, and now it isn't.  That's what's changed.

So frankly, it doesn't matter if you think there is no main storyline, it doesn't change the fact that there is one, and the entire game is pretty much built around it.

It's only there if you want to see it.

Unlike Elder Scrolls which has a main storyline but its not the focus of the character and their actions at all, so it leads to a more immersive and "true role-playing" experience. I don't understand why people can't see that difference.

The Elder Scrolls games are different from BioWare's games in degree, not in kind.  Well, now they're different in kind, but because BioWare's games have changed.

Frankly, I think BioWare did a better job of allowing roleplaying than Bethesda ever has, because their settings are better established, there are more interesting events happening within them, and they don't break the setting my relying on action combat.  I'd say that BioWare and Bethesda made similar games, but BioWare's were better, and then BioWare just abandoned the genre.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

For my attempted plays, the dialogue often had Hawke stating motives that were contrary to my design and expectations, and behaving in ways that were out of character with who I understood Hawke to be.

Exactly.

You shouldn't have to understand who Hawke is.  You should know, because you populated his mind.  Every detail of his thoughts should be available to you.  So when he utters any sentence at all, you should know exactly why he chose those specific words.

But in DA2, that's not possible.  Not unless you're willing to let Hawke's motives and behaviours wildly contradict each other throughout the game.

When I play an RPG, I don't want to push a button and see what happens.  My goal is not to "beat the game", but to role-play the character, and if/when I reach a point where there are no in-character options for the protag, I might end that playthrough.

This is what players who don't see a meaningful difference between BioWare's voiced and unvoiced games don't seem to understand.  We play the characters as best we can, and when there's nothing else for that character to do within the game's limits, then that story comes to an end.

There's no requirement that every Warden defeat the Archdemon (my favourite Warden so far was actually killed by Sten).  There's no requirement that every KotOR PC face Malak.  There's no requirement that every Bhaalspawn ultimately learn his parentage before dying or before running away to Amn.

The setting and story serve only as a backdrop or mechanic for role-play; I am much more interested in actively co-creating the story and emergent narrative than observing the authored narrative.

I couldn't agree more.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 27 août 2012 - 09:41 .

[jbrand2002uk]

Problem is that what you both agree on has never and never will exist in a videogame a videogame is an interactive story much like the multiple choice D&D books but visual in nature.
A story interactive or not has a clearly designed beginning, middle and end so it doesn't matter if you think the end of DAO's story has the Warden killed by Sten because thats not what happened in BW's story and it is BW's story not yours you are simply being given the ability to play through it.

The only way in which your Warden being killed by Sten is valid is in your Headcannon and as far as the game goes your Headcannon is null and void.

[jillabender]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Problem is that what you both agree on has never and never will exist in a videogame a videogame is an interactive story much like the multiple choice D&D books but visual in nature.
A story interactive or not has a clearly designed beginning, middle and end so it doesn't matter if you think the end of DAO's story has the Warden killed by Sten because thats not what happened in BW's story and it is BW's story not yours you are simply being given the ability to play through it.

The only way in which your Warden being killed by Sten is valid is in your Headcannon and as far as the game goes your Headcannon is null and void.

With respect, I'm not entirely sure what you're taking issue with. Are you saying that you don't believe it's possible to imagine anything about the story and the player character that's not explicitly stated in the game? Or are you saying that you don't believe that using one's own imagination to build on the story provided by the game can add anything to the experience?

When I step into the role of a character in DA:O, the details that I imagine about my character aren't part of the game's authored narrative, but they're still part of my experience of the game and it's story.

LinksOcarina Wrote…

See, what I am describing is a mechanic of the games as they are, which is indesputable. How you handle the events in your mind is your own business, and I know how you handle it, so I won't dispute or tell you what is right or not. The problem, is that you are missing the point about the mechanics as they are set up; the playstyle you describe is wholly incompatible, and has always been incompatible, because of the nature of the character ownership being both yours and BioWares, and because the story trumps the role-playing at critical moments in-game. It's not that it is a valid way of playing, it's just that BioWare games have never made it valid to begin with, and to suddenly see a influx of people saying they lost control of their character makes me shake my head.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that Sylvius' experience isn't relevant to a discussion of how the games were designed (I suspect that might also be what jbrand2002uk meant – I apologize if I'm misinterpreting either of you).

I can understand why you'd argue that, but I don't agree. As I see it, some games are designed in a way that makes it easy to build on the authored narrative using one's own imagination, while other games are designed in a way that makes that approach more difficult.

I also disagree with the idea that Bioware never intended for players to build on their authored narratives using their own imaginations in any of their games – based on the way games like DA:O and Baldur's Gate were designed, I have a hard time believing that Bioware never anticipated that players would imagine anything about the story or player character that's not explicitly stated in the game.

It can be hard to pin down exactly why certain features make it easier or harder to approach the game the way Sylvius describes, but I think Sylvius has done an excellent job of articulating how various design features of DA:O and DA2 have influenced his experience of both games.

Just to be clear, I'm not personally arguing that future Bioware games should provide me with the same kind of experience that games like Baldur's Gate and DA:O provided – although I'd be happy if they did, because I love both those games. I have mixed feelings about DA2, but I'm not opposed in principle to the idea of role-playing games that try to offer a different kind of experience from DA:O.

Modifié par jillabender, 28 août 2012 - 04:40 .

[Nomen Mendax]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Problem is that what you both agree on has never and never will exist in a videogame a videogame is an interactive story much like the multiple choice D&D books but visual in nature.
A story interactive or not has a clearly designed beginning, middle and end so it doesn't matter if you think the end of DAO's story has the Warden killed by Sten because thats not what happened in BW's story and it is BW's story not yours you are simply being given the ability to play through it.

The only way in which your Warden being killed by Sten is valid is in your Headcannon and as far as the game goes your Headcannon is null and void.

I don't really understand your example here.  Being killed by Sten is absolutely one possible end of Bioware's story, and one that they explicitly provide, it's not imagined or headcanon or anything else -- the warden can end up fighting Sten and can be killed by him.  If you choose not to reload the game that is the end of that warden's story. 

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 28 août 2012 - 05:16 .

[Realmzmaster]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Problem is that what you both agree on has never and never will exist in a videogame a videogame is an interactive story much like the multiple choice D&D books but visual in nature.
A story interactive or not has a clearly designed beginning, middle and end so it doesn't matter if you think the end of DAO's story has the Warden killed by Sten because thats not what happened in BW's story and it is BW's story not yours you are simply being given the ability to play through it.

The only way in which your Warden being killed by Sten is valid is in your Headcannon and as far as the game goes your Headcannon is null and void.

I don't really understand your example here.  Being killed by Sten is absolutely one possible end of Bioware's story, and one that they explicitly provide, it's not imagined or headcanon or anything else -- the warden can end up fighting Sten and can be killed by him.  If you choose not to reload the game that is the end of that warden's story. 

Are there any epilogue slides that tells what happens with the Blight, Arl Eamon etc if Sten kills the warden? Because what you say can be true anytime the party dies with no reload. The journey comes to an end. There are no epilogue slides to say what happen after the warden's death.
In actuality the only way Sten can kill the warden is if the player is bad at controlling the warden or the player lets the warden be killed. Beating Sten is not that hard even on nightmare. If the warden does lose most gamers simply reload from the last save and continue.
If the player wishes to let the warden die and not reload thereby writing the end of the story in their own head that is their prerogative.

A player can head canon anything but it does not change what is in the game. I can head canon that my warden met the ArchDemon and decided to change sides, but it can never happen in the game.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 28 août 2012 - 07:05 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Problem is that what you both agree on has never and never will exist in a videogame a videogame is an interactive story much like the multiple choice D&D books but visual in nature.
A story interactive or not has a clearly designed beginning, middle and end so it doesn't matter if you think the end of DAO's story has the Warden killed by Sten because thats not what happened in BW's story and it is BW's story not yours you are simply being given the ability to play through it.

The only way in which your Warden being killed by Sten is valid is in your Headcannon and as far as the game goes your Headcannon is null and void.

I don't really understand your example here.  Being killed by Sten is absolutely one possible end of Bioware's story, and one that they explicitly provide, it's not imagined or headcanon or anything else -- the warden can end up fighting Sten and can be killed by him.  If you choose not to reload the game that is the end of that warden's story. 

Are there any epilogue slides that tells what happens with the Blight, Arl Eamon etc if Sten kills the warden? Because what you say can be true anytime the party dies with no reload. The journey comes to an end. 
In actuality the only way Sten can kill the warden is if the player is bad at controlling the warden or the player lets the warden be killed. Beating Sten is not that hard even on nightmare.

Do you really need an epilogue slide for that? You can imagine yourself how it plays out; there's nothing wrong with filling in the blanks.

[Realmzmaster]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Problem is that what you both agree on has never and never will exist in a videogame a videogame is an interactive story much like the multiple choice D&D books but visual in nature.
A story interactive or not has a clearly designed beginning, middle and end so it doesn't matter if you think the end of DAO's story has the Warden killed by Sten because thats not what happened in BW's story and it is BW's story not yours you are simply being given the ability to play through it.

The only way in which your Warden being killed by Sten is valid is in your Headcannon and as far as the game goes your Headcannon is null and void.

I don't really understand your example here.  Being killed by Sten is absolutely one possible end of Bioware's story, and one that they explicitly provide, it's not imagined or headcanon or anything else -- the warden can end up fighting Sten and can be killed by him.  If you choose not to reload the game that is the end of that warden's story. 

Are there any epilogue slides that tells what happens with the Blight, Arl Eamon etc if Sten kills the warden? Because what you say can be true anytime the party dies with no reload. The journey comes to an end. 
In actuality the only way Sten can kill the warden is if the player is bad at controlling the warden or the player lets the warden be killed. Beating Sten is not that hard even on nightmare.

Do you really need an epilogue slide for that? You can imagine yourself how it plays out; there's nothing wrong with filling in the blanks.

Really, how do I know that Riordan and the other wardens did not storm in and slay tha ArchDemon and take out Loghain? What if Oralis decide to invade to stop the possibility of a Blight and at the same time reoccupy? Or maybe Alistair and Sten along with the others were able to stop the ArchDemon by making Loghain a Grey Warden and having him take the US. 

Or maybe the ArchDemon takes over and all humans are turned into darkspawn. The dwarves never get a king and end up in civil war.

I can imagine a lot of endings, many which do not see the Blight spreading and others that do, but none of it has anything to do with the game it is all simply head canon.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...



BioWare's story is the reason for the setting existing.

The setting exists.  Any conclusion beyond that is baseless.

Even with the same events (and I maintain that BioWare's earlier games allowed us considerable freedom to establish different events, but bear with me), how those events are framed can change the story very much.  Is Hawke's story a struggle of him against the establishment, or is he struggling against widepsread ignorance, or is he a helpless pawn, or is he a manupulative power-hungry schemer who uses others for his own ends?

We're not just stuck with BioWare's story.

If it was not the main crux of the game, then BioWare storylines would be all like Skyrim, where you can go anywhere, do anything, fight anyone, and so forth.

Correlation does not equal causation.

There is no presupposition here, unless if you are making a headcannon to what the ending to the game really is.

Now you're incorrectly assuming an excluded middle, where if I don't accept BioWare's endpoint then I must have a different one in mind.

The storyline of Baldurs Gate, for example always has the endpoint of killing Sarevok. He is always involved with the iron shortage and clears up the mines, always joins up with the Flaming Fists, always charged for murder of the Iron Throne leaders.

But is that always part of one coherent story, or are those seemingly unrelated events?  Does the Bhaalspawn seek out his attacker or does he run and hide?  Does he know that the iron shortage is related to Sarevok?  Does he suspect?
 
And you've completely discounted the possibility of the Bhaalspawn not surviving to the so-called end.

How do you presuppose the ending to those plot threads, when they all inter-connect with each other in the narrative? Do you skip one over and not get involved? Do you accept being framed or the fact that you got caught for murder? Do you even get the chance to side with Sarevok at all, or is he always the bad guy because he killed Gorion?

If you want to be told a story, then you'll see a story being told at you.  That's great.  That way the game gives you what you want.

But I don't want to be told a story, and BiOWare's earlier games allowed me to create my own.  That's been taken away.

You still don't get it.  I'm not claiming that the games can't be played your way.  I'm claiming they used to be able to be played my way.

If anything, you as a player is bound by the will of the story, other than to stop playing your characters "life" based on that said story. And Baldurs Gate is one example.

The player is bound by the scope of the setting.  Nothing more.

See, what I am describing is a mechanic of the games as they are, which is indesputable. How you handle the events in your mind is your own business, and I know how you handle it, so I won't dispute or tell you what is right or not. The problem, is that you are missing the point about the mechanics as they are set up; the playstyle you describe is wholly incompatible, and has always been incompatible, because of the nature of the character ownership being both yours and BioWares, and because the story trumps the role-playing at critical moments in-game. It's not that it is a valid way of playing, it's just that BioWare games have never made it valid to begin with, and to suddenly see a influx of people saying they lost control of their character makes me shake my head.

What do you mean by "valid"?

It was a possible way of playing, and now it isn't.  That's what's changed.

So frankly, it doesn't matter if you think there is no main storyline, it doesn't change the fact that there is one, and the entire game is pretty much built around it.

It's only there if you want to see it.

Unlike Elder Scrolls which has a main storyline but its not the focus of the character and their actions at all, so it leads to a more immersive and "true role-playing" experience. I don't understand why people can't see that difference.

The Elder Scrolls games are different from BioWare's games in degree, not in kind.  Well, now they're different in kind, but because BioWare's games have changed.

Frankly, I think BioWare did a better job of allowing roleplaying than Bethesda ever has, because their settings are better established, there are more interesting events happening within them, and they don't break the setting my relying on action combat.  I'd say that BioWare and Bethesda made similar games, but BioWare's were better, and then BioWare just abandoned the genre.

I agree; it looks like some of us saw different things in previous BioWare games. Some people were only interested in the story and characters and how it plays out; others were interested in what kind of person their character was supposed to be. There was more control over your own character, and now there's not. It's really hard to miss.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Problem is that what you both agree on has never and never will exist in a videogame a videogame is an interactive story much like the multiple choice D&D books but visual in nature.

Do you realise that all you've done there is claim that I'm wrong, but havent actually offered any evidence that I'm wrong?

A story interactive or not has a clearly designed beginning, middle and end so it doesn't matter if you think the end of DAO's story has the Warden killed by Sten because thats not what happened in BW's story and it is BW's story not yours you are simply being given the ability to play through it.

Again, why are you presupposing that BioWare's intended story is the only possible story?  You need to support that.

The only way in which your Warden being killed by Sten is valid is in your Headcannon and as far as the game goes your Headcannon is null and void.

I watched it happen.  That's an outcome that's actually modelled by the game.  How can you claim that didn't happen except in my "Headcannon"?  Sten challenged that Warden's leadership, fought him, and won.  The Warden was dead.

Are you honestly claiming that it isn't possible for the Warden to die prior to facing the archdemon?  I'm pretty sure most DAO players saw that happen many times.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Problem is that what you both agree on has never and never will exist in a videogame a videogame is an interactive story much like the multiple choice D&D books but visual in nature.
A story interactive or not has a clearly designed beginning, middle and end so it doesn't matter if you think the end of DAO's story has the Warden killed by Sten because thats not what happened in BW's story and it is BW's story not yours you are simply being given the ability to play through it.

The only way in which your Warden being killed by Sten is valid is in your Headcannon and as far as the game goes your Headcannon is null and void.

I don't really understand your example here.  Being killed by Sten is absolutely one possible end of Bioware's story, and one that they explicitly provide, it's not imagined or headcanon or anything else -- the warden can end up fighting Sten and can be killed by him.  If you choose not to reload the game that is the end of that warden's story. 

Are there any epilogue slides that tells what happens with the Blight, Arl Eamon etc if Sten kills the warden? Because what you say can be true anytime the party dies with no reload. The journey comes to an end. 
In actuality the only way Sten can kill the warden is if the player is bad at controlling the warden or the player lets the warden be killed. Beating Sten is not that hard even on nightmare.

Do you really need an epilogue slide for that? You can imagine yourself how it plays out; there's nothing wrong with filling in the blanks.

Really, how do I know that Riordan and the other wardens did not storm in and slay tha ArchDemon and take out Loghain? What if Oralis decide to invade to stop the possibility of a Blight and at the same time reoccupy? Or maybe Alistair and Sten along with the others were able to stop the ArchDemon by making Loghain a Grey Warden and having him take the US. 

Or maybe the ArchDemon takes over and all humans are turned into darkspawn. The dwarves never get a king and end up in civil war.

I can imagine a lot of endings, many which do not see the Blight spreading and others that do, but none of it has anything to do with the game it is all simply head canon.

So... I don't see the problem. If BioWare makes it clear that if your Warden dies, then the Blight will spread, then that's what'll happen unless you like to imagine a different ending (which is fine too). It's out of your character's hands since he failed. If BioWare, or word of god or whatever doesn't clearly say what happens, then you're free to imagine what happened yourself. Both options are valid.

I really don't see the problem. It's still roleplaying. Fallout 1 & 2 both have canon endings; does that invalidate my way of roleplaying?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Are there any epilogue slides that tells what happens with the Blight, Arl Eamon etc if Sten kills the warden?

No.  The game doesn't provide that.  Which makes sense, really.  If the player is perceiving the world from the Warden's perspective, then he shouldn't know what happens after the Warden's death.

I would argue that the incongruous outcome is the availability of Epilogue slides following the Ultimate Sacrifice (which I've never seen - I'm assuming they exist).

Because what you say can be true anytime the party dies with no reload. The journey comes to an end.

Exactly.  It's possible for any particular Warden's story to end at any time.

In actuality the only way Sten can kill the warden is if the player is bad at controlling the warden or the player lets the warden be killed. Beating Sten is not that hard even on nightmare. If the warden does lose most gamers simply reload from the last save and continue.

In my case, I'd built the character suboptimally.  He was a coward, and avoided all physical combat.  To justify this, he only learned non-combat skills (he wouldn't have framed it in those terms - he wouldn't have admitted even to himself that he was a coward).  He was a Rogue who used a shield to maximise his Defense and Armour scores.  He was a really interesting character to play, but he was virtually guaranteed not to survive the game.

And he died, right there in the game.

A player can head canon anything but it does not change what is in the game.

The Warden's death is right there in the game.  It can happen almost anywhere.

But more importantly, the player can headcanon anything.  And DA2 even makes this option explicit through the use of the unreliable narrator.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Really, how do I know that Riordan and the other wardens did not storm in and slay tha ArchDemon and take out Loghain?

You don't, unless you want to head canon it.

How do you know what discoveries Dagna makes when studying at the Circle?  How do you know the ultimate fate of the miners from the Bone Pit?  You don't.  The game doesn't tell you everything.  If you want to know some of those details, you need to provide them.

[jbrand2002uk]

while any character in any game can die before the end thats not the definitive ending the definitive ending is what happens after the final mission is completed anything else is headcannon and therefore irrelevant D&D books have a clearly defined beginning, middle and end and while some of the choices made at various stages can lead to the characters death the death is not the end it is simply the failing of the reader to make the correct choice.

Sten may well be able to kill the Warden in their duel, however that is not the end of the story simply the failing of you the player to successfully navigate that portion of the story.
The cannon ending of DAO is that the archdemon is slain by The Warden by one of a multitude of means anything else is headcannon and not valid.

[Mr Fixit]

Sorry, jbrand, but that's just not true. In a role-playing game, you (gasp) role-play a character. When that character dies, the game, where that character and that playthrough are concerned, is over.

It's not "headcannon" nor "headsemiautomaticrifle" for that matter.

Whatever BioWare planned for the end of the game in this character's reality never came to pass, and therefore doesn't exist.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

while any character in any game can die before the end thats not the definitive ending the definitive ending is what happens after the final mission is completed anything else is headcannon and therefore irrelevant D&D books have a clearly defined beginning, middle and end and while some of the choices made at various stages can lead to the characters death the death is not the end it is simply the failing of the reader to make the correct choice.

Sten may well be able to kill the Warden in their duel, however that is not the end of the story simply the failing of you the player to successfully navigate that portion of the story.
The cannon ending of DAO is that the archdemon is slain by The Warden by one of a multitude of means anything else is headcannon and not valid.

Uh...  PnP RPGs can kill off your character before you succeed at any time. There is no 'correct' choice.

Anyway, Sylvius the Mad is right. What makes his way of roleplaying any less valid? What BioWare wants to do with the canonicity of the story may be just as irrelevant to him. If only choices that can be accepted as canon by the developer are 'valid', then replaying Fallout 1 as anything other than a guy named Albert who eventually establishes the village of Arroyo would be pointless. Anything other than a light sided Revan would also not be 'valid'.

What you see as a failure to beat the game can just as well be another way of roleplaying your character.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 28 août 2012 - 02:59 .

[Nomen Mendax]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Are there any epilogue slides that tells what happens with the Blight, Arl Eamon etc if Sten kills the warden? Because what you say can be true anytime the party dies with no reload. The journey comes to an end. There are no epilogue slides to say what happen after the warden's death.
In actuality the only way Sten can kill the warden is if the player is bad at controlling the warden or the player lets the warden be killed. Beating Sten is not that hard even on nightmare. If the warden does lose most gamers simply reload from the last save and continue.
If the player wishes to let the warden die and not reload thereby writing the end of the story in their own head that is their prerogative.

A player can head canon anything but it does not change what is in the game. I can head canon that my warden met the ArchDemon and decided to change sides, but it can never happen in the game.

But one of your examples is pure imagination on the player's part (meeting the arch demon and changing sides) and the other (being killed by Sten) is something that actually happens in the game. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

while any character in any game can die before the end thats not the definitive ending the definitive ending is what happens after the final mission is completed anything else is headcannon and therefore irrelevant D&D books have a clearly defined beginning, middle and end and while some of the choices made at various stages can lead to the characters death the death is not the end it is simply the failing of the reader to make the correct choice.

On what basis are you determining one ending to be definitive while dismissing the others?

Sten may well be able to kill the Warden in their duel, however that is not the end of the story simply the failing of you the player to successfully navigate that portion of the story.

What does the player have to do with it?  The player isn't part of the story.  From any point of view within the story, the player doesn't even exist.

Here you're not even treating the narrative like a narrative.  You're just treating it like a component of gameplay.

Roleplaying games don't have to be played as games, and they don't have to be viewed as games.  Your opinion, though, relies on your insistence that roleplaying games can only be viewed and sjudged as games, and that's nonsense.

The cannon ending of DAO is that the archdemon is slain by The Warden by one of a multitude of means anything else is headcannon and not valid.

Why?  Why are endings that are not canon invalid?  How is the existence of canon even relevant to the validity of endings?

You're making a ton of unsupported assumptions, here.

[bEVEsthda]

 - Yes!

I want to play my character, not Bioware's.

I also want to play my character's story, not Bioware's.

And I would say that's not just my business, but Bioware's too.

”The problem is”...

Why exactly are some people even trying to argue something here? What's their point? Where are they trying to go with it? And why?

There is no problem. A horde of us have played wrpgs in this manner for almost two decades, including all Bioware games up to DA2. And I would also say that it's also completely obvious that these earlier Bioware games were intentionally designed and featured to accomodate the player's characters and emergent narrative in this way. But that doesn't even matter, if they did or not. What matters is how we actually experience the game. And that's a clearcut case.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 28 août 2012 - 08:12 .