280 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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.

No the warden can only die if the whole party dies just like Hawke and party. The only time the warden can specifically die is in a one on one duel much like Hawke in the duel with the Arishok. Unlike the Bhaalspawn where if the Bhaalspawn died the game ended.

There are only three times when it can happen in DAO (Sten, Loghain and the last one being the US) and one time in DA2 where the game ends because the PC dies. Otherwise the whole party must die.

[Pasquale1234]

jbrand2002uk wrote...
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.

Oh, but it is the end of that character's story.  Whatever else might happen within the setting is not relevant to the deceased.  Permadeath == game over.

Failing?  Not if the choices made were in-character.  Making in-character choices is ultimate success for an RPG playthrough, regardless of when and how that playthrough ends.

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

ETA:

Realmzmaster wrote...
No the warden can only die if the whole party dies just like Hawke and party.

But there is a potential for the entire party to fall in pretty much any given battle.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 28 août 2012 - 06:58 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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.

No the warden can only die if the whole party dies just like Hawke and party. The only time the warden can specifically die is in a one on one duel much like Hawke in the duel with the Arishok. Unlike the Bhaalspawn where if the Bhaalspawn died the game ended.

There are only three times when it can happen in DAO (Sten, Loghain and the last one being the US) and one time in DA2 where the game ends because the PC dies. Otherwise the whole party must die.

Well, also the one-on-one fight with Shale if you kill Caridan and didn't bring Shale, but tell her about it afterwards. 

Not meaning to split hairs, but... well, okay, that was totally splitting hairs. 

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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.

No the warden can only die if the whole party dies just like Hawke and party. The only time the warden can specifically die is in a one on one duel much like Hawke in the duel with the Arishok. Unlike the Bhaalspawn where if the Bhaalspawn died the game ended.

There are only three times when it can happen in DAO (Sten, Loghain and the last one being the US) and one time in DA2 where the game ends because the PC dies. Otherwise the whole party must die.

Well, also the one-on-one fight with Shale if you kill Caridan and didn't bring Shale, but tell her about it afterwards. 

Not meaning to split hairs, but... well, okay, that was totally splitting hairs. 

True, but the one's I mentioned always happen except Sten which does not always happen. The one with Shale must be specifically triggered. I almost forgot there is one with Zevran that can also be triggered and against Ser Landry in Honor Bound. But as I said it can only happen in one on one duels.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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).

The epilogue slides only exist for the gamer unless the warden is alive. If the warden committed the US as you state there is no need for epilogue slides from the warden's view point because the warden is dead. So why are epilogue slides shown if the warden did the US. I put forth that they should not be shown. It is incongruous that it is provided in one instance and not the other.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

No the warden can only die if the whole party dies just like Hawke and party.

That still means the Warden can die whenever the entire active party dies.  And the active party might not be many people.  If the Warden wanders off by himself he can always die by himself.

The only time the warden can specifically die is in a one on one duel much like Hawke in the duel with the Arishok. Unlike the Bhaalspawn where if the Bhaalspawn died the game ended.

There are only three times when it can happen in DAO (Sten, Loghain and the last one being the US) and one time in DA2 where the game ends because the PC dies. Otherwise the whole party must die.

I don't understand why you think the death of the party matters, and I don't understand why you're ignoring the possibility of the Warden going out alone.

And you forgot the Fade.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Failing?  Not if the choices made were in-character.  Making in-character choices is ultimate success for an RPG playthrough, regardless of when and how that playthrough ends.

Exactly this.

Players who approach roleplaying games purely as games have different winning conditions from ours.  They think the goal is to beat the game.  We think the goal is to play the character.

But we're not telling them they have to play our way or they're somehow doing it wrong.

[Olmerto]

This method of role playing is not unique to a RPG. You can play the same way in any game, a FPS, an action game, a driving simulation... any game where you can die you can just stop playing and call it "game over". Thing is, Bioware is a game company, not a role playing company, and only endings that entail completing the game will be recognized as "player canon" for later games.

That may not matter to you true roleplayers, but you have to complete the story to import a save. And if its not a completed game save you'll be stuck with the default events your save doesn't include.

Given those facts, there's absolutely nothing to argue about on this matter. It's not like DA2 made it impossible to roleplay Hawke in the same manner. What is the point trying to be made here?

[Mr Fixit]

Olmert wrote...

Thing is, Bioware is a game company, not a role playing company, and only endings that entail completing the game will be recognized as "player canon" for later games.

That may not matter to you true roleplayers, but you have to complete the story to import a save. And if its not a completed game save you'll be stuck with the default events your save doesn't include.

And why should importing a save matter with regards to roleplaying? How (and if) imports are done for a subsequent DA game has nothing to do with a character from a previous game. Call it branching reality, if you will.

[Olmerto]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Olmert wrote...

Thing is, Bioware is a game company, not a role playing company, and only endings that entail completing the game will be recognized as "player canon" for later games.

That may not matter to you true roleplayers, but you have to complete the story to import a save. And if its not a completed game save you'll be stuck with the default events your save doesn't include.

And why should importing a save matter with regards to roleplaying? How (and if) imports are done for a subsequent DA game has nothing to do with a character from a previous game. Call it branching reality, if you will.

As I noted in my post, a save may well not matter to players like this.  It matters to me.  Probably to a lot of other people.  But again, what's the point?  You play this way, no one can, or should, stop you.  Do you want some kind of change in the game to accomodate this better?  What in particular?

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

No the warden can only die if the whole party dies just like Hawke and party.

That still means the Warden can die whenever the entire active party dies.  And the active party might not be many people.  If the Warden wanders off by himself he can always die by himself.

The only time the warden can specifically die is in a one on one duel much like Hawke in the duel with the Arishok. Unlike the Bhaalspawn where if the Bhaalspawn died the game ended.

There are only three times when it can happen in DAO (Sten, Loghain and the last one being the US) and one time in DA2 where the game ends because the PC dies. Otherwise the whole party must die.

I don't understand why you think the death of the party matters, and I don't understand why you're ignoring the possibility of the Warden going out alone.

And you forgot the Fade.

If the warden goes out alone then the warden is a party of one.  The gamer can choose to have one in the party which has to be the warden. You are not allowed to form a party without the warden or Hawke. Solo simply means a party of one. 
You are correct I forgot the Fade.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Olmert wrote...

This method of role playing is not unique to a RPG. You can play the same way in any game, a FPS, an action game, a driving simulation... any game where you can die you can just stop playing and call it "game over". Thing is, Bioware is a game company, not a role playing company, and only endings that entail completing the game will be recognized as "player canon" for later games.

That may not matter to you true roleplayers, but you have to complete the story to import a save. And if its not a completed game save you'll be stuck with the default events your save doesn't include.[/quote]
I don't see why BioWare is at all concerned with consistency across games when they're not concerned with consistency inside a single game.
The transfer of save states from one game to another is irrelevant.
Given those facts, there's absolutely nothing to argue about on this matter. It's not like DA2 made it impossible to roleplay Hawke in the same manner.[/quote]
Yes it did.  That's the point we're making.  Because we weren't able to make decisions for Hawke and have the game no contradict those decisions, we were not able to roleplay Hawke in the same way we could with earlier BioWare protagonists.

The voice+paraphrase broke the game.
[quote]As I noted in my post, a save may well not matter to players like this.  It matters to me.  Probably to a lot of other people.  But again, what's the point?  You play this way, no one can, or should, stop you.[/quote]
BioWare has stopped me.
[quote]Do you want some kind of change in the game to accomodate this better?  What in particular?[/quote]
I want them to undo the harm caused by the introduction of the voice+paraphrase.  I'm not calling for there to be no voice.  I'm not calling for full text dialogue options.  I'm calling for the game to accommodate the playstyles supported by earlier titles.

When I choose a dialogue option for Hawke, I should be able to know exactly why Hawke is saying that.  At no point should Hawke ever say anything that contradicts those motives I've fabricated.  BioWare's earlier roleplaying games allowed this by letting the player see exactly what his options were, so he could avoid character-breaking dialogue.  DA2's use of the paraphrase prevents this.  BiOWare's earlier roleplaying games allowed this by letting the player fabricate any delivery he could justify to himself for any line of PC dialogue.  DA2's use of the voiced PC prevents this.

BioWare needs to find a way to support player-directed character creation with this new direction, or they need to tell us explicitly that they see deep roleplaying as legacy behaviour they're no longer willing to support (Google did this when asked how to disable tabbed browsing in Chrome - they said they weren't going to let users do that, and they didn't have any interest in supporting users who wanted to).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

If the warden goes out alone then the warden is a party of one.  The gamer can choose to have one in the party which has to be the warden. You are not allowed to form a party without the warden or Hawke. Solo simply means a party of one. 

Yes.  And regardless of how many people are with the Warden, or where he is in the game, the Warden can die.  Literally anywhere.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

If the warden goes out alone then the warden is a party of one.  The gamer can choose to have one in the party which has to be the warden. You are not allowed to form a party without the warden or Hawke. Solo simply means a party of one. 

Yes.  And regardless of how many people are with the Warden, or where he is in the game, the Warden can die.  Literally anywhere.

No the warden can only be rendered unconcious as long as party members are with the warden as far as the game mechanics are concerned. Now if one in their head canon chooses to say that the warden is dead and end the game that is a different matter. That gamer can turn the game off or start a new character. 

If one wishes to roleplay that way that is fine. When I roleplay I intend to see it through to the end of the tale. I wish to see the conclusion of the matter.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 28 août 2012 - 09:45 .

[Nomen Mendax]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

...

I want them to undo the harm caused by the introduction of the voice+paraphrase.  I'm not calling for there to be no voice.  I'm not calling for full text dialogue options.  I'm calling for the game to accommodate the playstyles supported by earlier titles.

When I choose a dialogue option for Hawke, I should be able to know exactly why Hawke is saying that.  At no point should Hawke ever say anything that contradicts those motives I've fabricated.  BioWare's earlier roleplaying games allowed this by letting the player see exactly what his options were, so he could avoid character-breaking dialogue.  DA2's use of the paraphrase prevents this.  BiOWare's earlier roleplaying games allowed this by letting the player fabricate any delivery he could justify to himself for any line of PC dialogue.  DA2's use of the voiced PC prevents this.

BioWare needs to find a way to support player-directed character creation with this new direction, or they need to tell us explicitly that they see deep roleplaying as legacy behaviour they're no longer willing to support (Google did this when asked how to disable tabbed browsing in Chrome - they said they weren't going to let users do that, and they didn't have any interest in supporting users who wanted to).

I completely agree with this.  I don't feel in any way entitled to demand that Bioware make their games the way I want them to (or we'd still be playing turn based games) but I do think its reasonable to ask them what sort of play styles they intend to support.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 28 août 2012 - 10:18 .

[Pasquale1234]

^^ Me, three.

[jbrand2002uk]

Problem is Sylvius many like yourself say the game is broken because it doesn't allow your playstyle thing is the games fine its your playstyle that's broken because its unsuitable for that game.

Thing is you can slice a lemon a thousand times but in the end its still a lemon, so it doesnt matter what techtalk you use to put DA games in a brackect its still a game.
I'm sorry to shatter you reality here but the way a game works is you adapt your playstyle to suit it not the other way around.

In short the reason DA2 doesnt work for you is because your still trying to play it like DAO and the narrative's in both games are as different as chalk and cheese.

Just don't hold your breath waiting for a game to suit your playstyle, you'll turn a nasty shade of blue/purple and that will so clash with your socks.

Modifié par jbrand2002uk, 28 août 2012 - 11:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

No the warden can only be rendered unconcious as long as party members are with the warden as far as the game mechanics are concerned.

As long as they don't also die, yes.  But that wasn't an established caveat.

Wherever the Warden goes, he can die.  In some cases, he can die on his own.  In other cases, he requires other people to die as well.  But no matter where he goes, he can still die.

If one wishes to roleplay that way that is fine. When I roleplay I intend to see it through to the end of the tale. I wish to see the conclusion of the matter.

And you can do that.  No one is stopping you.

The problem is that BioWare is stopping me.

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Problem is Sylvius many like yourself say the game is broken because it doesn't allow your playstyle thing is the games fine its your playstyle that's broken because its unsuitable for that game.

If it's a roleplaying game, it should support roleplaying.

If it isn't going to support roleplaying in the way the older games did, I want them to tell me that.

Thing is you can slice a lemon a thousand times but in the end its still a lemon, so it doesnt matter what techtalk you use to put DA games in a brackect its still a game.
I'm sorry to shatter you reality here but the way a game works is you adapt your playstyle to suit it not the other way around.

In short the reason DA2 doesnt work for you is because your still trying to play it like DAO and the narrative's in both games are as different as chalk and cheese.

My point all along here has been that BioWare made a game that is materially different from their earlier games in terms of what playstyles it supported.  DA2's defenders have typically denied that.  You denied it earlier in this very thread.

So I'm glad that we've convinced you.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 28 août 2012 - 11:32 .

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

BioWare needs to find a way to support player-directed character creation with this new direction, or they need to tell us explicitly that they see deep roleplaying as legacy behaviour they're no longer willing to support (Google did this when asked how to disable tabbed browsing in Chrome - they said they weren't going to let users do that, and they didn't have any interest in supporting users who wanted to).

That sounds reasonable to me. BioWare can certainly choose to take the series in a different direction, but it seems only fair that they give us an idea of what to expect – once they're far enough in production that they feel ready, of course.

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.

I'm also puzzled by that example being described as "head canon," because it's something that is explicitly shown to happen in the game. The loading screen saying "Your Journey Ends" makes it clear that the Warden has died, unless the player chooses to reload the game and continue the story assuming that the Warden didn't die.

I have to admit that I find it a bit frustrating when people argue that it's impossible to experience an emergent narrative when playing a cRPG. I'm reminded of when Plaintiff said to Pasquale1234 "you can't experience anything in a game that was not written." (I apologize for singling you out, Plaintiff. It's nothing personal – I'm only bringing up that exchange to make a point.)

I think Plaintiff meant that as the player, I can't "experience" something I imagined about my character in the sense of having the game respond to what I imagined directly. And that's true, because the game can't read my mind. For example, I can choose to imagine that Tamlen and my male Dalish rogue were "friends with benefits," but there will never be any dialogue to that effect in the game itself.

The problem is that Pasquale1234 never argued that the game responds to her "head canon" in that sense. Neither has Sylvius, and neither have I.

I think it's fair to say that when we say that we experience an emergent narrative, all we're saying is that what we imagine about the story and characters affects our overall experience of the game and its story – nothing more, and nothing less.

We can experience an emergent narrative because the act of imagining and buiding on the game's authored narrative IS an experience.

Modifié par jillabender, 29 août 2012 - 05:24 .

[Olmerto]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BioWare has stopped me.

Do you want some kind of change in the game to accomodate this better?  What in particular?

I want them to undo the harm caused by the introduction of the voice+paraphrase.  I'm not calling for there to be no voice.  I'm not calling for full text dialogue options.  I'm calling for the game to accommodate the playstyles supported by earlier titles.

This of misses the context of my post.  I was specifically writing to the argument about dying prior to the end of the game as a form of roleplaying.  And indeed, there's nothing in DA2 stopping you from doing just that.  No impediment to roleplaying there.

But the voice+paraphrase argument goes back to your preference for no expressed personality in the game, if I've understood your arguments correctly.  You prefer that tone and personality remain the realm of your own imagination.  I understand that, and I respect your preference.  But...

When I choose a dialogue option for Hawke, I should be able to know exactly why Hawke is saying that.  At no point should Hawke ever say anything that contradicts those motives I've fabricated.  BioWare's earlier roleplaying games allowed this by letting the player see exactly what his options were, so he could avoid character-breaking dialogue.  DA2's use of the paraphrase prevents this.

But in this case your preference interferes with voiced characters' effectiveness.  Were full text of all dialog lines provided, the voiced lines would be absolutely redundant.  People would skip the voiced dialog, or get frustrated having to wait for the delivery when they'd already read and made their choice of line.  Bioware conducted tests of voiced dialog and discovered this to be the case.  There is no way you can give full text AND voiced lines and not undermine the delivery of the voiced protagonist.  The player must have a strong reason to listen to the delivery; and a big part of that is getting to hear for the first time exactly what your character actually says.  Sometimes it may be a bit surprising -- it should be -- that's now part of the game.

BioWare needs to find a way to support player-directed character creation with this new direction, or they need to tell us explicitly that they see deep roleplaying as legacy behaviour they're no longer willing to support (Google did this when asked how to disable tabbed browsing in Chrome - they said they weren't going to let users do that, and they didn't have any interest in supporting users who wanted to).

Bioware really isn't going to come out and actively dissuade you from supporting their product.  They clearly want you to buy it and learn to like it on its own merit.  But with the introduction of voiced protagonists in DA2 and their public statements about staying the course, don't you think they've already indicated that they're no longer supporting the type of roleplaying experience you've described?  You seem to be waiting for an engraved announcement when it's rather obvious to all but you.

Ideally, you could find a different way to enjoy a Bioware game.  You wouldn't feel the conflict.  But at least you have The Elder Scrolls (which I hate), tons of indie games (which mostly don't interest me), past Bioware titles (which I occasionally return to), Fallout 3 and progeny (I intensely dislike post-apocalyptic settings), and probably others I'm not familiar with or not remembering, that offer silent protagonists that let you imagine any motivation and purpose you desire.

Personally, I preferred silent protagonist until I actually played DA2 a few months ago.  I found my experience actually changed very little, and mostly for the better.  I've always "played the game" of dialog, never tried to roleplay my own unique story.  I always embraced Bioware's story from Baldur's Gate on.  The voice drastically enhanced the interaction between my character and voiced NPCs as I was no longer mute during emotional scenes as I was in DAO.  I felt inferior to my companions because while they're giving impassioned pleas and speeches, I am glaringly silent in a supposedly two-way exchange.  It would have been better for ALL characters to be silent than to single out the protagonist.

So to the point, it appears to me that your own preference conflicts with my own enjoyment of the game and there's no compromise possible.  One of us has to lose.  I do hope it's you, though I'm sorry about it.

[jillabender]

Olmert wrote…

So to the point, it appears to me that your own preference conflicts with my own enjoyment of the game and there's no compromise possible. One of us has to lose. I do hope it's you, though I'm sorry about it.

I don't think you really need to apologize for wanting BioWare to make the kinds of games that you personally enjoy – each of us wants BioWare to make the kinds of games that we personally enjoy!

Personally, it doesn't bother me, at least not in any serious way, when people say that they don't want to see more games like the ones I like.

It does bother me a bit when I feel as though people are dismissing my experiences by implying that I couldn't possibly have experienced a game the way I say I did – even if it's not done intentionally. But that kind of thing is understandable – we're only human, after all, and we have strong feelings about games. And I am open to the suggestion that I'm mistaken about the reason for my reaction to a game – I often find that when I have a strong emotional reaction to a game, swapping experiences with other gamers makes it clearer to me what exactly it is about the game that I'm reacting to.

Modifié par jillabender, 29 août 2012 - 01:38 .

[Nomen Mendax]

Olmert wrote...

...
Bioware really isn't going to come out and actively dissuade you from supporting their product.  They clearly want you to buy it and learn to like it on its own merit.  But with the introduction of voiced protagonists in DA2 and their public statements about staying the course, don't you think they've already indicated that they're no longer supporting the type of roleplaying experience you've described?  You seem to be waiting for an engraved announcement when it's rather obvious to all but you.

...

Personally, I preferred silent protagonist until I actually played DA2 a few months ago.  I found my experience actually changed very little, and mostly for the better.  I've always "played the game" of dialog, never tried to roleplay my own unique story.  I always embraced Bioware's story from Baldur's Gate on.  The voice drastically enhanced the interaction between my character and voiced NPCs as I was no longer mute during emotional scenes as I was in DAO.  I felt inferior to my companions because while they're giving impassioned pleas and speeches, I am glaringly silent in a supposedly two-way exchange.  It would have been better for ALL characters to be silent than to single out the protagonist.

So to the point, it appears to me that your own preference conflicts with my own enjoyment of the game and there's no compromise possible.  One of us has to lose.  I do hope it's you, though I'm sorry about it.

One of the things I found interesting with your post was your use of the word I in the part I've put in bold.  I never felt that kind of connection with Hawke.  I felt I was roleplaying the warden but watching to see what Hawke did.  The latter holds much less interest for me.

Contrary to your opinion I do think there are things that Bioware can do to support Sylvius' (and my) style of roleplaying. While I know they are not going to do it I don't buy into Bioware's arguments for not  allowing you to see the full text as an option*. [edit] If people decide to skip listening to the voice actor because they have already the line then so what, presumably that's their preference. [/edit]

But even without having full text I think they can do a much better job of either paraphrasing, or perhaps throwing out the paraphrasing system and replacing it with intent and tone.  For me one of the main barriers to roleplaying is being surprised by what my character says, if the surprise can be reduced to a tolerable level then I'd find the games much more enjoyable.

As an aside I still think a voiced PC is problematic simply because the number of options that it allows the player is reduced because the voice has a tone (obviously).  As has been mentioned frequently in this discussion one of the advantages of text is that the same line could be (imagined to be) said in a number of different ways, this effectively increases the number of responses that the PC can make.  In DA2 you are usually limited to being diplomatic, snarky or aggressive - that really isn't a very broad selection.

*Actually DG had one very good argument for it, which is its not really possible if they are going to have extended conversations that are initiated by a single player input.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 29 août 2012 - 01:40 .

[Nomen Mendax]

jillabender wrote...
It does bother me a bit when I feel as though people are dismissing my experiences by implying that I couldn't possibly have experienced a game the way I say I did – even if it's not done intentionally. But that kind of thing is understandable – we're only human, after all, and we have strong feelings about games. And I am open to the suggestion that I'm mistaken about the reason for my reaction to a game – I often find that when I have a strong emotional reaction to a game, swapping experiences with other gamers makes it clearer to me what exactly it is about the game that I'm reacting to.

This is a great point, I'm aware that my objections to the conversation interface of DA2 are probably magnified by the fact that I find the combat repetitive and dull.  If I found the combat more entertaining I might be less bothered by the paraphrasing.

[jillabender]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

jillabender wrote...
It does bother me a bit when I feel as though people are dismissing my experiences by implying that I couldn't possibly have experienced a game the way I say I did – even if it's not done intentionally. But that kind of thing is understandable – we're only human, after all, and we have strong feelings about games. And I am open to the suggestion that I'm mistaken about the reason for my reaction to a game – I often find that when I have a strong emotional reaction to a game, swapping experiences with other gamers makes it clearer to me what exactly it is about the game that I'm reacting to.

This is a great point, I'm aware that my objections to the conversation interface of DA2 are probably magnified by the fact that I find the combat repetitive and dull.  If I found the combat more entertaining I might be less bothered by the paraphrasing.

Yes, that's a good example of the kind of thing I'm talking about.

LinksOcarina wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

jillabender wrote...
Personally, I would need to know more about how Hawke is changed as a person by theevents 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.

That's a good point – those examples do show that it's at least possible to play Hawke in a way that shows him or her growing and changing as a character. But for some reason, I just wasn't drawn enough to Hawke to feel motivated to want to provide him or her with a detailed character arc the way I do my Wardens.

I found Hawke entertaining, but there was something about his or her personality and demeanour, no matter which tone icons I selected, that left me feeling emotionally detached from him or her.

I can't put my finger on why, exactly, but I think it might have something to do with the fact that each of the toned dialogue choices tended to fall toward the extreme end of its descriptor – I might have found it easier to form an emotional connection with Hawke if his or her demeanour had been a bit more subtle.

Modifié par jillabender, 06 septembre 2012 - 07:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Olmert wrote...

But in this case your preference interferes with voiced characters' effectiveness.  Were full text of all dialog lines provided, the voiced lines would be absolutely redundant.[/quote]
That's clearly not true.  If the sole purpose of the voiced line was to inform the player of what was said, then you would be correct, but that cannot be the sole purpose of the voiced line.  The full text unvoiced line did that just as well, and it was cheaper.

No, the voiced line clearly has another objective - one not fulfilled by the silent text - and that objective can still be met by the voiced line even if the player knows the text of that line in advance.   Generally, the benefit of the voiced line over the silent text is described in terms of giving the character personality, immersiveness, or more effectively conveying emotions.
[quote]People would skip the voiced dialog[/quote]
This is not a problem.  Those people who want to hear the line wouldn't skip it, and those who think the line is redundant (a group that necessarily excludes those who favour the voiced protagonist) would skip.  Everyone gets what they want.
[quote]or get frustrated having to wait for the delivery when they'd already read and made their choice of line.[/quote]
How could this possibly be frustrating?  Either you think the voiced line contains new information (in which case you wait for it), or you don't (in which case you skip it).  If the voiced line does not contain new information, then it is redudant, but it is also skippable, so there's no problem.  If the voiced line does contain new information, then it is not redundant and there's no reason to skip it.
[quote]Bioware conducted tests of voiced dialog and discovered this to be the case.[/quote]
BioWare found that people skipped the lines, yes.  but BioWare has no reason to prefer one method of play over another.
[quote]There is no way you can give full text AND voiced lines and not undermine the delivery of the voiced protagonist.[/quote]
This is both untrue and not relevant.  As I said above, I'm not asking for full text.  I'm asking for full information.  How they provide that information is up to them, but the information must be provided to make the game playabale.
[quote]The player must have a strong reason to listen to the delivery; and a big part of that is getting to hear for the first time exactly what your character actually says.  Sometimes it may be a bit surprising -- it should be -- that's now part of the game.[/quote]
That's a terrible part of the game.  If I don't know exactly what my character is going to say, then I cannot know exactly why he is saying it.  But I have to know why he is saying it, because I'm the one making the selection.  How is the player supposed to know which option to choose for his character if he isn't allowed to know his character's motives?
[quote]Bioware really isn't going to come out and actively dissuade you from supporting their product.  They clearly want you to buy it and learn to like it on its own merit.  But with the introduction of voiced protagonists in DA2 and their public statements about staying the course, don't you think they've already indicated that they're no longer supporting the type of roleplaying experience you've described?[/quote]
Not at all.  They openly admit the failings of their attempts at paraphrases so far.  They openly claim that they can do better.  If the game is intended to be played without knowledge of the subsequent line, then the paraphrases, as they are, already function as intended.  There would then be no need for improvement.
[quote]Ideally, you could find a different way to enjoy a Bioware game.[/quote]
I have no interest in playing a game.  I have interest in roleplaying.

I do not play games.  I play characters.
[quote]But at least you have The Elder Scrolls (which I hate), tons of indie games (which mostly don't interest me), past Bioware titles (which I occasionally return to), Fallout 3 and progeny (I intensely dislike post-apocalyptic settings), and probably others I'm not familiar with or not remembering, that offer silent protagonists that let you imagine any motivation and purpose you desire.[/quote]
I loathe action combat.  Action combat breaks roleplaying almost as much as the voice+paraphrase has.
[quote]Personally, I preferred silent protagonist until I actually played DA2 a few months ago.  I found my experience actually changed very little, and mostly for the better.  I've always "played the game" of dialog, never tried to roleplay my own unique story.  I always embraced Bioware's story from Baldur's Gate on.  The voice drastically enhanced the interaction between my character and voiced NPCs as I was no longer mute during emotional scenes as I was in DAO.  I felt inferior to my companions because while they're giving impassioned pleas and speeches, I am glaringly silent in a supposedly two-way exchange.  It would have been better for ALL characters to be silent than to single out the protagonist.[/quote]
I was never even part of those scenes.  My character was.  This is likely an important different between our approaches.  I don't identify with my characters; I have perfect knowledge of my characters, but they are not me.

Moreover, even my characters were never silent in those scenes.  They spoke.  That speech simply wasn't modelled by the game, just as eating and sleeping isn't modelled by the game.  The failure of the game to show my character eating or sleeping does not mean my character doesn't eat or sleep, and the failure of the game to show my character speaking does not mean my character does not speak.

I do not understand why anyone would assume it did, unless that assumption improved his gameplay experience.  It clearly diminished yours, so why did you assume it?
[quote]So to the point, it appears to me that your own preference conflicts with my own enjoyment of the game and there's no compromise possible.  One of us has to lose.  I do hope it's you, though I'm sorry about it.[/quote]
You are only so willing to embrace a zero-sum game because it appears you are winning it.  Your confirmation bias is strong.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 29 août 2012 - 04:16 .