298 réponses à ce sujet

[Merlex]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

In DA 2, I've asked Feyneriel to go to the Circle only to find out he will go to Dallish Camp no matter what choice I've made. So what's the purpose of making a choice? How would making such meaningless choice could affect your character development?

I don't really disagree with your points. But in my last playthrough, Feyneriel did go to the circle when i told him to. I didn't really give him a choice though. He was in the circle in the beginning of Act 2. I only played to the middle of Act 2, so it may have changed. 

[Xewaka]

Merlex wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
In DA 2, I've asked Feyneriel to go to the Circle only to find out he will go to Dallish Camp no matter what choice I've made. So what's the purpose of making a choice? How would making such meaningless choice could affect your character development?

I don't really disagree with your points. But in my last playthrough, Feyneriel did go to the circle when i told him to. I didn't really give him a choice though. He was in the circle in the beginning of Act 2. I only played to the middle of Act 2, so it may have changed. 

If you tranquil him, he's definitely in the Gallows. If Feyneriel joins the Dalish regardless of your suggestion, it shows that A) Feyneriel had his own misgivings, and you couldn't talk him out of it, and more importantly  Your character believes the Circle system works. Reason  on its own, given how the game develops, should be enough. Choices are not only about shaping the world around your character, but perhaps more importanting, about defining who that character is and what he/she believes.

Well, it could also be a bug. Sometimes it happens.

Modifié par Xewaka, 17 septembre 2012 - 02:33 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Not meaning to answer in Allan's stead, but this is how I feel.

There is rarely any significance to what you say based on the words themselves. What is important is what information the other party receives from what you say -

I find this a very troubling opinion.  The speaker has no control over how his words are received, so it would be irrational of the speaker to measure his success or failure based on that.

The exact words used are not what is interesting, it is the logical information that is conveyed and the tone with which it's said.

If you'd said "expressed" rather than "conveyed", then I would agreed wholeheartedly.  But it is the words that tell us what that logical information is.  With the paraprhases, there's no way to know what logical information will be expressed.

The paraphrases, I think, renders worthless any approach that relies on knowing what's going to be said.

With the old DAO list, you can easily tell which information will be said, but you won't be able to guess tone without comparing it to other options. If the other option on your list is is "**** you, I like red", you can surmise the above option is nicer. If the opposite option is "I would like the red ball" then the example line would likely be sarcastic and mean - you wouldn't have two dialogue options for basically the same thing. Sometimes it can be hard to tell even so, however.

You didn't need to guess how the line would be said.  You culd just decide how it would be said, and the game never contradicted you.  This is an inherent benefit of the silent protagonist, and I see no way to regain that level of control with a voiced PC.

People say, "what about when the NPC reacts inappropriately?"  Some would explain that by appealing to misunderstanding, but I don't think that's even necessary.  I don't think it's possible to know whether an NPC has reacted inappropriately.  Unexpectedly, sure, but why would we think we know how someone ought react to what we say?  The inner workings of other people's minds are a mystery to us.

So, when people say, "What about when the NPC reacts inappropriately?" I think that's a nonsensical question.

With the DA2 wheel, you can tell which information will be said if the paraphrase is well-written, and the tone is given to you freely. Possible problems arise from things such as a paraphrase saying "(Diplomatic) I like red balls" and the character saying "Red balls are the latest fashion in Orlais. I'll gladly take one!". When this happens, your character may be broken since the information delivered in the actual line does not match the information in the paraphrase. Had the paraphrase said "(Diplomatic) A red ball á la Orlesian fashion" then there would be no problems in information conveyance.

I'll agree with that.  Unfortunately, the paraphrases so far tend not to include sufficient information.

That's not at all what happens though. Everyone and their dog who was in the same room would testify as your character being threatening as crap. Your character -was- threatening, you as a player simply misunderstood your options.

That's entirely your assumption.  There's no reason you need to hold that opinion.  Nothing in the game tells us, unequivocally, that the PC was threatening.  As such, the PC wasn't necessarily threatening.

That's the ambiguity the silent PC offers, and that ambiguity grants greater control.

I don't mind losing the ambiguity.  I do mind losing the control.

It's exactly like my one surprise from the wheel in DA2 where I figured I was going to calmly ask my companion to rationalise his actions, where instead my character - his lover - would yell accusations. That's one of those funky "choice" icons so I had no way to tell the tone, figures that'd be the time the wheel surprised me x)

Except, in DA2, there's no ambiguity, and thus no control.  That's the difference.

You can't rationalise the person listening to you is misunderstanding, not really.

If any aspect of the game ever requires rationalisation of any sort, then the game is broken.

The player needs to choose lines with full knowledge of how they'll be delivered and what they will say, and why they're being said using those words and that tone, and that information should never have to be revised after the fact.

Giving empty threats is a pretty cool thing to be able to do. It needs to be signaled as such though. Picking "You will pay!" from a list does in no way make you any more able to have it mean an empty threat. You would need choices go to:

1. You will pay!
2. You will pay! (Attack)

Note how there's a worded intent icon at the end of one of them to separate? Likewise on the wheel, you could have:

1. (Red fist) You will pay!
2. (Crossed swords) You will pay!

No.  There should be a single option, and then the choice to attack or not should come later in non-conversation gameplay.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I think it is as Sylvius often says:  In previous BioWare games, two different approaches to dialog were possible.  The one that acknowledged and worked with writer intent, and the one that ignored or dismissed writer intent as an obstacle to roleplaying.

Exactly.

And I would like BioWare either to take steps to improve the gameplay experience of those who use the second approach, or to tell us outright that they're no longer supporting it.

They've actually denied previously that they were ever supporting it, but they clearly were.  Perhaps not intentionally, but they were.

[Wozearly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Unless, of course, that's not what they're doing at all.

If these players are actually choosing lines not based on what they want their characters to do, but based on what they want their characters to achieve, then this makes a lot more sense. That would be an approach favoured by the "win button" icons such as flirt or attack.

But selecting outcomes rather than actions does not, to me, resemble roleplaying at all.

I think there's a lot of truth to that being how the dialogue system effectively works in DA2.

You're not deciding what your character says so much as indicating broadly how you think he should react to something (most tonal icons) with a hint at the general jist of what will be said, or deciding on a specific outcome (flirt, attack).

Hawke then does his own thing based primarily on the tone (although, duly noted, even this can be highly ambiguous in the sarky selection) and the player has to accept that their character isn't necessarily doing what they thought, which is a great immersion breaker of reminding you that 'your' character is not by any means fully under your control.

Having the outcome of what they try to do surprise the player and/or character from time to time? Absolutely no problem with that. Having my own character surprise me by saying or doing something wildly unexpected compared to the choice I made? Massive, massive problem with that.

To avoid it happening again in the same system, the tonal icons would need to be much more tightly defined (or the writing fit more closely with the tone) and the text would need either excellent paraphrasing or, better, be represented in full...perhaps using a mouse-over to spare those who find the concept of reading the full line to be dull / irrelevant / too much hassle / yawn yawn / button pressed awesome not happening, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather the voiced protagonist got axed entirely because I personally feel that it damages far more than it adds. No voice actor in the world could make a Sith Revan sound as brutally awesome as he did in my head... 
But sadly that boat has sailed. We can merely hope that at some point it gets shipwrecked.

Modifié par Wozearly, 17 septembre 2012 - 06:46 .

[Merlex]

Xewaka wrote...

Merlex wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
In DA 2, I've asked Feyneriel to go to the Circle only to find out he will go to Dallish Camp no matter what choice I've made. So what's the purpose of making a choice? How would making such meaningless choice could affect your character development?

I don't really disagree with your points. But in my last playthrough, Feyneriel did go to the circle when i told him to. I didn't really give him a choice though. He was in the circle in the beginning of Act 2. I only played to the middle of Act 2, so it may have changed. 

If you tranquil him, he's definitely in the Gallows. If Feyneriel joins the Dalish regardless of your suggestion, it shows that A) Feyneriel had his own misgivings, and you couldn't talk him out of it, and more importantly  Your character believes the Circle system works. Reason  on its own, given how the game develops, should be enough. Choices are not only about shaping the world around your character, but perhaps more importanting, about defining who that character is and what he/she believes.

Well, it could also be a bug. Sometimes it happens.

That Hawk from the beginning took a pro templar stance. He was careful in front of Bethany however. He didn't want to upset her.

He told Anders that circles were neccessary to protect mages as well as non- mages. "Would you leave them to the demons?" The first time he went to the Gallows after entering Kirkwall, he had Fenris, Anders, and Merrill with him. That was an interesting conversation. 

Feyneriel wasn't tranquil. I did receive a letter about his time in the circle, but i don't remember if it was Act 1 or Act 2. I haven't done Night Terrors on that playthrough yet, so he may be with the Dalish? I'll have to go back now and play that personality again sometime, to see what happens.

[Vandicus]

To the OP, the ideal of an rpg on the simulationist end of GNS is not possible with the current level of technology. Stuff like that requires a real life DM.

Moreover, Bioware games are not attempting to be simulationist. They are attempting to create illusion of choice. In DMing this technique is referred to as illusionism. This is where to the players it appears that they're making decisions while in reality the end results is the same.

After years of tabletop games illusionism is easily recognizeable to me at sight. Dragon Age Origins apparently did a good job of it because the "decisions" in the game largely culminated in simple epilogue text. The only decisions that had an impact in the same game that the players got to see have a "real" result were the choices of elves v werewolves, golems v dwarves, and mages v templars. DA:O did not have the quest chain type experience we see in DA2. In this way DA:O might be called a straight railroad from beginning to end, albeit one with well hidden rails.

DA2 on the other hand, though it employs a raildroad as well, has one with multiple sidebranches and detours before reaching the same destination. The way in which Bioware did the game with Act 1, Act 2, and Act 3, allowed us to see the results of the actions of Hawke in the previous Acts. This is the quest chain thing which I'm referring to. DA:O, singular quests like bounty board or gather X items which have no effect besides a reward and perhaps a brief mention in the epilogue vs choosing whether or not to kill apostates who will or will not then show up later in the game. In this way the game allowed players to experience the results of their choices without having to wait for the next game in the series, something that is much closer to simulationism than DA:O.

tl;dr

DA2 is closer to a choice based rpg than DA:O, although people might not realize it. A true choice based rpg, let alone a true choice based rpg series is not possible. Too many possible outcomes for a simulationist game to be built. The closest achievable is illusionism, where the players think their choices matter.

The question here is whether people want more quest chains(allowing us to see the results of actions in game), want better illusionism(via the "act" choosing of DA:O involving the choice between going to Redcliffe, the woods, the mountains, and the Circle), or whether they more of both.

Modifié par Vandicus, 18 septembre 2012 - 12:48 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

simfamSP wrote...

I don't play TNO so I couldn't comment. But Neverwinter character development was governed based on D&D principles like lawful good, lawful chaotic, true neutral, evil chaotic etc.. which is a good thing since it should lay a foundation to BioWare on how to develop more complex personality.

A game telling me what my morality is, is just as bad as a game using my character to further the narrative. I can be lawful evil and help out a group of Nobles in a fairly 'good' quest, but all my motives are based on the reward.

It shouldn't tell what your morality is, but it should tell  the consequences of choosing such morality. The more morality system you have the more consequences should be available to you. And you can't impose such varied consequences with completely railroaded linear story filled with tons of illusion of choices.  

 

simfamSP wrote...

(TNO is a character, not a game. I'm refering to The Nameless One.)

A character from Planescape Torment? I don't play Planescape Torment.

simfamSP wrote...

And ME as a trilogy was a little two sided. But using the game mechanics and seeing it as the only way to develop a character is a folly. I could develop Shepard from goody-two-shoes paragon into a half-half kinda guy easily. I just have to pick the right options and the right moments.

You could begin the game hating aliens, but then through your interactions with Liara you can slowly start to like them. Starting of with "renegade" options and then slowly moving to paragon. It all happens in the subjective realm.

And risk loosing the chance to maximize either paragon points or renegade points, therefore risk killing Sheppard and all his squadmates due to lack of loyalty? I think not.

simfamSP wrote...

In reality we are complex individual with different background, experiences, education, motives and goals and it's reflected by our personalities. Tabletop RPG and D&D tried to reflect those complex individuals through proper ruleset and proper way to govern a story.

Table top is writing your own play and story.

I am writing my own play and story in Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age Origins with Toolset.

simfamSP wrote...

A game is limited, there is no way you can come to that level of simulation.

(I'll continue on later.)

You and I both know that. So why trying to dictate/force character personality through oversimplified system like Paragon/Renegade and Diplomatic/Humorous/aggresive voice tone? Just because a faction of crowd demand to see their visualized character's expression? What about the faction that wanted a blank slate character? How would imposing such ridiculous generic system suppose to be an ideal solution for both parties? 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 18 septembre 2012 - 04:48 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Vandicus wrote...

To the OP, the ideal of an rpg on the simulationist end of GNS is not possible with the current level of technology. Stuff like that requires a real life DM.

Stuff like that is not possible because the current technology is wasted on developing cinematic game which offer little value to roleplaying, instead of enhancing tabletop experience

Vandicus wrote...

Moreover, Bioware games are not attempting to be simulationist. They are attempting to create illusion of choice. In DMing this technique is referred to as illusionism. This is where to the players it appears that they're making decisions while in reality the end results is the same.

They should stop doing that and start making a choice a real choice.

Vandicus wrote...

After years of tabletop games illusionism is easily recognizeable to me at sight. Dragon Age Origins apparently did a good job of it because the "decisions" in the game largely culminated in simple epilogue text. The only decisions that had an impact in the same game that the players got to see have a "real" result were the choices of elves v werewolves, golems v dwarves, and mages v templars. DA:O did not have the quest chain type experience we see in DA2. In this way DA:O might be called a straight railroad from beginning to end, albeit one with well hidden rails.

Those real result is my top priority in a RPG. 

Vandicus wrote...


DA2 on the other hand, though it employs a raildroad as well, has one with multiple sidebranches and detours before reaching the same destination. The way in which Bioware did the game with Act 1, Act 2, and Act 3, allowed us to see the results of the actions of Hawke in the previous Acts.

You mean like picking sides or staying neutral in ACT 2? I don't see that happening by the end of ACT 3. 

Vandicus wrote...



This is the quest chain thing which I'm referring to. DA:O, singular quests like bounty board or gather X items which have no effect besides a reward and perhaps a brief mention in the epilogue vs choosing whether or not to kill apostates who will or will not then show up later in the game. In this way the game allowed players to experience the results of their choices without having to wait for the next game in the series, something that is much closer to simulationism than DA:O.

Which is not entirely true. Do you aware that one of the side quest is offered by one of the nobles who happen to vote in the landsmeet?  

Vandicus wrote...

DA2 is closer to a choice based rpg than DA:O, although people might not realize it. A true choice based rpg, let alone a true choice based rpg series is not possible. Too many possible outcomes for a simulationist game to be built. The closest achievable is illusionism, where the players think their choices matter.

We have true simulation game since the late 80s which offer real choice. Ever heard the game called The Sims series? It's EA own games. You see that's beauty of RPG. It doesn't necessary be cinematic action game alone. It can be a simulation game or strategy game. I'm sure you do aware that the first RPG was born from a strategy game. The thing is we do have the technology to create complex simulation and  strategy game. We only wasted those technology on something you called voice acting and cinematic experience. Do you know DA 2 files consist largely of sound files for voice acting which could cause a problem when you try to squeeze everything into a single disk? Not saying anything just.. it's such a waste thing to do.

Vandicus wrote...

The question here is whether people want more quest chains(allowing us to see the results of actions in game), want better illusionism(via the "act" choosing of DA:O involving the choice between going to Redcliffe, the woods, the mountains, and the Circle), or whether they more of both.

Without the sense of passing years, quest chains in DA 2 are useless and have no relevance to how I play my game. Therefore I would rather see "real" result being shown to me as in DAO.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 18 septembre 2012 - 05:28 .

[Il Divo]

simfamSP wrote...

You say that Loghain wouldn't make as good an antagonist if we were not explicitly shown his character development, but not showing that in BG made BG a much better story. Because the big bad isn't necessarily the best available antagonist for the narrative the player is building.

Yet we weren't allowed this due to DA:O's nature. BG gave us free passage and hardly restricted us at all. We could do as we pleased from the moment Gorion was killed. In DA:O we are backed behind the wall of the narrative.

Not necessarily a bad thing though. But that is up to what your taste is in games. I find that the better the narrative, the easier I can roleplay. Though I have to admit, that in BG that wasn't the case, but that's always because I stuck to the main plot. I have seen a let's play of someone who wasn't interested in the mainplot, and it took a little bit of character breaking in order to do so.

IIRC, the Nashkel mines had little to do with the assassin's who came. Or at least, a link couldn't be established until much later on.

Yeah, imo this was one of the worst aspect's of BG1. The central conflict didn't have much going for it and was treated more like an after-thought. I prefer the approach seen in games like KotOR, Jade Empire, DA:O, and Mass Effect where the player has a key role in the plot, with opportunities for role-play emerging along the way. Initially, dealing with BG's main plot feels like any other side-quest.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

Initially, dealing with BG's main plot feels like any other side-quest.

That's what makes it great.

Wozearly wrote...

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather the voiced protagonist got axed entirely because I personally feel that it damages far more than it adds. No voice actor in the world could make a Sith Revan sound as brutally awesome as he did in my head... 

But sadly that boat has sailed.

Until Project Eternity shows the world again how great a silent protagonist can be.

simfamSP wrote...

The consequence is of no (no pun intended) consequence to the development of said character, just the choice.

This is something many players appear to have forgotten.

Yes, but it doesn't make him any more interesting as a character. Until Throne of Bhaal, we never get to see who Sarevok *really* is. Loghain would have been a cliche character but could have still been well written as Sarevok was.

But making Loghain and Savervok interesting characters is only valuable insofar as it offers greater roleplaying opportunities.  Wherever leaving Loghain or Sarevok undefined improves roleplaying opportunities, that should be done.

Telling a good story isn't necessarily good RPG design.  Sometimes it can be.  Sometimes it makes the game worse.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not all conflicts need to be man vs. man. BG works well as Man vs. self, I think. Man vs. Nature. Man vs. Society. There are so many options - why tie us to Loghain?

Because that is how the plot worked from the moment he branded us as traitors. You could not give a sod about Loghain too, but Origins is sadly quite linear in this way since we do get meddled up in politics whether we like it or not.

But whether that matters to the personal story of that particular Warden will differ from playthrough to playthrough.  A Warden focussed on his duty would treat Loghain's accusation as an annoyance to be overcome, but not a central point in his quest to stop the Blight until circumstances forced it to become so.

When the Warden goes to Redcliffe, he can be like Alistair and be looking for vindication in the face of Loghain's accusations, or he could be simply trying to fulfill his duty to assemble forces against the Blight all while deeming Loghain's accusations irrelevant.

The story lives in why the Warden does things.  Loghain's scheming may well not matter.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 septembre 2012 - 06:40 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's what makes it great..

That's why it bored me to tears. My interest in RPGs is largely in their ability to make me feel like I'm actively participating in an epic narrative. Baldur's Gate 1 does not do this to any measurable extent. KotOR/Mass Effect is infinitely better by throwing the player into the main conflict.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 septembre 2012 - 07:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

We have incompatible preferences on this issue.

[Il Divo]

Fair enough. It's certainly not the first time we've had RPG disagreements.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 septembre 2012 - 09:27 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Our preferences aren't entirely incompatible. I also want to feel like I'm actively participating in an epic narrative, but to me "active participation" requires that I have a hand in crafting it, rather than just following along.

Following the narrative and taking part only when I need to kill something doesn't do it for me. Plus, I'd like each time I play the game to produce a different story, and having to discover the main quest really helps with that. How and when and why the main quest is uncovered tells us a lot about the character who uncovers it. But ME and DAO just hand us the quest right away. That's less fun.

I do think KotOR, though, did a good job of letting us uncover the plot. The first act on Taris was long enough to allow us to develop our characters fully before running into the actual story.

[eroeru]

^ And I actually felt that in Origins. Though thrown in to the story early on, its reasoning for that was compelling (Duncan recruiting you, then the battle of Ostagar and Duncan dying amongst other things, e.g. lots of possible RP reasons).

And after that the character was to explore for quests and such, most of which weren't mandatory yet were sufficiently "epic" or meaningful, and allowing for different RPs. In the end he/she killed the Archdemon, but again, the variables were very allowing and great overall - the character's intent and actual story was shaped by many choices and quests alongside - in the end there were tens of very obvious distinct character-types your protagonist could have been (defined much via story).

In ME I felt more restrictions, but this is mostly because of a vast use of cinematics and voiced PC, probably. But I'd gather that if counted up, Origins would surely win in the "choice-driven story" department.
Also, the side-quests in ME were less involving and fleshed-out. Origins allowed for optional great content, that's what made playthroughs unique and the game great in many ways.

It's a WRONG game-design principle to concentrate on only mandatory content.
Side-quests should be as epic and intriguing, or moreso even than the "main" game.

Modifié par eroeru, 18 septembre 2012 - 10:03 .

[LinksOcarina]

I am just going to come out and say it.

The ideal RPG is neither being a movie, or a table top. It is what you, the person participating in the experience, makes it to be. Essentially, there is no right or wrong answer here, there is just a subjective debate on a budding form of art and entertainment.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

[quote]simfamSP wrote...

[quote] You can't take an inspired popular movie and dump it to players to roleplay because the story is written to serve different audiences. You can't allow the player to be ahead of the story etc..[/quote]

And how exactly does that go hand in hand with Dragon Age 2? Yes you're right, but I was neither in front of the story arch nor was it a movie. If DA2 was a movie then I'd suggest you play games with choices that effect the slightest thing which ARE movies:

The Walking Dead
Heavy Rain.[/quote]
I have no desire nor interest to play any interactive movie. I'm saying you can't simply write a story without concern who your target audiences are and how it would played out for them. A story should serve as a journey for players in the world created by the developer. It shouldn't be use as a mean to threat player as passive audience like novels and movies do. You don't tell the story to the player. You let them live out those story and decide how it goes by themself - without you spoiling the fun by pulling their nose them all the way.     


[quote]simfamSP wrote...

The character is central to the narrative, and the narrative serves as a mechanic for the character. You may have no influence over the overal story arch, but you do have an impact on the character. [/quote]
What impact are those? Imaginary Impact? I could do that just fine with blank slate character without developer trying to ruin my character by potraying dumb response in cinematic cutscenes.


[quote]simfamSP wrote...


A game centered around the character in roleplaying and narrative would be Planescape: Torment. You had very little "choice" when it came to who ****ed you in the ass later on, but you could seriously alter TNO's character.[/quote]
See? This is where you and I have different view on roleplaying. You allow yourself to be ****ed up in the ass later on while I don't believe in such things since I adopt tabletop's roleplaying by writing my own play and story. Planescape Torment doesn't offer me a toolset. Neither with some of BioWare's games like KoToR, ME series, Sonic Chronicles, MDK etc.. Therefore I don't play this kind of games and could not share with your view.


[quote]simfamSP wrote...



[quote]. Neverwinter Nights and Origins railroaded you as well but when you do make a choice it does related to the story even the choices are just illusion. For example the choice of killing or sparing Connor[/quote]

That choice had no impact on the narrative, rather, it had a larger impact on the character.[/quote]
That choice had impact on Isolde, Arl Eamon and Alistair. That choice could cause serious problem with your relationship with Alistair especially if your character is romancing Alistair and if you're trying to persuade him to take the DR later on.



[quote]simfamSP wrote...

[quote] In DA 2, I've asked Feyneriel to go to the Circle only to find out he will go to Dallish Camp no matter what choice I've made. So what's the purpose of making a choice?[/quote]

The purpose is to define your character, not to have NPCs bow at your every command.
The choice was there to further develop Hawke. Development was made, or at the very least, definement.
[/quote]
I define my character at character creation screen the moment I pick my character's class. I know my character and why I pick those option. I don't need useless choices to do so.

What I need is real choice to develop my charater along with the story. And I don't get that from DA 2.


[quote]simfamSP wrote...
 
The consequence is of no (no pun intended) consequence to the development of said character, just the choice.[/quote] 
Which is the same as saying imaginary choices. I could make up a lot of imaginary choices with no consequences and impact on narrative simply with blank slate character. So what's the pupose of showing me cinematic's character  when such characters are incapable to show me real consequences to the development of said character?


[quote]simfamSP wrote...
 
[quote]How would making such meaningless choice could affect your character development?[/quote]

Because the choice was made. It implies that your character is more pro-circle, or it could imply anything. Remember when I talked about how I hate it when games assume I mean something when I don't? Perfect example. You could be, for all I know, trying to kiss Meredith's ass and hopefully use it later on as an arguement with a Templar or something.[/quote]
The choice to define my character was made the moment I created my character at character screen and not during gameplay. I don't choose story events to define or establish my character. I choose story events to develop my character. Therefore, if I can't influence the story then there is no character development.  And that is exactly what happen to BioWare's Hawke. A static cheerful friendly character who is untouched and unaffected by personal tragedies involving her family. She goes on picking junks belong to others and return them. Despite her motives and preference, she butchered everyone, mages and templars alike and left with complete silence. Only BioWare knows what inside her head. After all, she is their character. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 19 septembre 2012 - 01:37 .

[wowpwnslol]

A classic RPG with meaningful choices, which make an actual impact on the story is not possible in this modern day and age where absolutely everything is driven by money and EA holding Bioware's reins. The bottom line is the most important part and thus catering to the lowest common denominator is the norm when making "RPGs" like DA2. So expect more games dominated by cutscenes, Diplomatic/Sarcastic/Hostile dialogue options, hand holding, dumbing down "complicated" game mechanics for the ADD console kiddies. classic RPG genre is dead, DA:O was a decent effort to bring it back - but DA2 proved that Bioware(EA) is all about catering not to real RPG fans that enjoyed their games since the 90's but to general, dumb public. Expect D3 to be more of the same crap that made D2 a massive fiasco.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

simfamSP wrote...

See? This is where you and I have different view on roleplaying. You allow yourself to be ****ed up in the ass later on while I don't believe in such things since I adopt tabletop's roleplaying by writing my own play and story. Planescape Torment doesn't offer me a toolset. Neither with some of BioWare's games like KoToR, ME series, Sonic Chronicles, MDK etc.. Therefore I don't play this kind of games and could not share with your view.

Please, Planescape: Torment is a game everybody within the RPG community should play. It is a must have.

Other than that, I don't see the point of talking about a toolset. I am using the game as an example, not some third party program. If you use the toolset in NWN to do your own DnD sessions, fine. But then there is no point in argueing about roleplaying within an already developed game.

I'm argueing tabletop D&D roleplaying vs cinematic roleplaying. I'm argueing BioWare's RPG. Both Baldur Gate and Neverwinter Nights are using D&D roleplaying's ruleset. Both Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age Origins provide toolset to allow create-your-own-adventure experience. That's alone is enough to create a tabletop roleplayng or your own D&D session. But that's mindset appear to be no longer exist in BioWare's game in their eagerness to tell the players THEIR story and Character, instead of player's story and character. I'm argueing why? Don't give me excuse of game limitation and design reflected in Kotor, Jade Empire, Sonic Chornicles, MDK etc... I don't buy it. I can easily overwrite those limitation by writing my own play and story if there's a toolset like Nevrwinter Nights and Dragon Age Origins. But if they can't provide toolset for whatever reason, then I expect something to compensate the lost of ability to create my character and adventure. I expected features and consequences to influence or alter the story in anyway possible. I wouldn't settle for less nor do I wish to allow my roleplaying be limited by this so called game design. When you take out designer's toolset or pen and paper or dice and ruleset, then it's up to you to replace it with something equivalent in the form of game features, story alteration and character creation.  

simfamSP wrote...

That choice had impact on Isolde, Arl Eamon and Alistair. That choice could cause serious problem with your relationship with Alistair especially if your character is romancing Alistair and if you're trying to persuade him to take the DR later on.

Yes, but when roleplaying it is the character that is central to the choice. A consequence is always nice to have, it further improves the RP scale by giving you more situations in which to choose in. But it is not central to the character since the reaction to that consequence is up to you.

Those reaction is already defined by BioWare in cinematic cutscenes - completely contradict with my own.

simfamSP wrote...


In DA2 the choice is always there, you just have to pick the right one. It is the CONSEQUENCE you're talking about, and that is something else. Nothing Hawke does infleunces the narrative (much) but the consequences, passive or otherwise, is still giving you the choice to play the role you imagined.

There is no choice. Every choices to play the imaginary role is destroyed by Hawke's reactivity,  dominant personality, railroaded plot,  Hawke's contradictionary cinematic reaction and emotions, etc..

simfamSP wrote...



When I didn't have a choice to determine the fate of the chantry, that didn't bother me. The choice to react to the situation is what is important, not the alteration.

Choice is choice, there is no need for huge alterations. Simply being a spectator of larger events doesn't deprive from the way you RP Hawke, as long as you have the choice to react to those events.

 Unfortunately that choice is not always mine either. I don't choose Hawke to be humorous clown. She does it on her own. I don't choose Hawke to be bad tempered or a jerk with angry voice tone. She does it on her own. I don't choose Hawke to be passive. She does it on her own. I don't choose Hawke to anger the mayor no matter what voice tone is there. She does it on her own.  

simfamSP wrote...

Which is the same as saying imaginary choices. I could make up a lot of imaginary choices with no consequences and impact on narrative simply with blank slate character. So what's the pupose of showing me cinematic's character when such characters are incapable to show me real consequences to the development of said character?

Explained in the post reply above.

The choice to define my character was made the moment I created my character at character screen and not during gameplay. I don't choose story events to define or establish my character. I choose story events to develop my character.

It is variable. The choice of development is always there, so is the choice to create a character with little development. 

Look at Mice and Men. A story. Just pretend Steinbeck was making his own roleplaying game and chose to have a character of high strength, constitution, willpower and dexterity; but very little wisdom and intelligence.

He is playing as Lenny. A character with no development, yet he manages to play his desired role perfectly.

Once again to "imaginary choice." I am not implying that you make your own choice in your head. I am implying that you make your own reasons and motivations in your head. In order to RP you NEED this ability.

 My Own reasons and motivations?
I wanted to stay low in Kirkwall to avoid the templars and to protect my sister. Hawke didn't react to it. The plot didn't allow it. I have no reason for fame, wealth and nobility. I don't want that. Instead, Hawke only care for those things completely ignore the safety of her mother and sister. You already know what the consequences of Hawke's incompetentness.
I want to leave Kirkwall after the blight because Kirkwall is too corrupted for any sane beings to live. Hawke didn't react to it. The plot didn't allow it too.  
I don't want to bother myself with mage-templar crisis as it doesn't concern me. I am a warrior who only care for the safety of my famy. And yet I'm dumped with fanatics extremist zealot and naive companions who never even asked how I feel or tolerate any amount of compromisation. 

I have no reason and motives. I can't roleplay in first person because the plot is too ridiculous to do so. Hell, I don't even feel I have a character to roleplay. The way I see it, Hawke is no difference than any NPCs. 

 I have the ability to make my own reasons and motives. DA 2 destroy it the moment BioWare tell their own fairy tale with their own protagonist capable only to voice in 3 tones. A mentally disorder character. My role in the game is reduced to passive audience who only pick useless choices for this mentally disorder character and tedious combat filled with wave after wave mobs who are the one that leveling. I am not roleplaying.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:54 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

simfamSP wrote...

Aye, that is why I always make sure to rate the game and the roleplaying aspects seperatley. Gothic is a great game, but its RP aptitude doesn't reach that far.

I only care about the roleplaying.  That is my sole criterion.

An annoyance, but nothing minor. Loghain is a wasp, not a fly. Any Warden with a moderate intelligence will understand that leaving this problem for too long will make it a big problem. So you are muddled up no matter how you perceive the problem.

Assuming moderate intelligence.

To the Warden, yes. As I said, it isn't central to the Warden's narrative, it is central to (let's just call it Thedas') narrative.

But here the two conflict.  I'm always going to resolve that conflict in favour of the player-created emergent narrative.  As such, the authored narrative ("Thedas' narrative", as you call it) exists only to facilitate the former.

Exactly, the subjective realm plays a heavy part in roleplaying. How else do you choose a characters motivations? Why did my Hawke choose to be sarcastic at a time when it is no appropiate? Is she socially awkward, uses humour as a defense? There are a lot of things that involve the imagination.

Except DA2 doesn't let you do that, because you don't know in advance what any given line is going to be.  you could only do this by retconning motive for every single line.

Choice is choice, there is no need for huge alterations.

I completely agree.  But based on that, DA2 didn't offer many choices.

It is variable. The choice of development is always there, so is the choice to create a character with little development.

Look at Mice and Men. A story. Just pretend Steinbeck was making his own roleplaying game and chose to have a character of high strength, constitution, willpower and dexterity; but very little wisdom and intelligence.

He is playing as Lenny. A character with no development, yet he manages to play his desired role perfectly.

Because Steinbeck got to choose what Lenny would say and do.  The player is deprived that in DA2.

Note, I'm not claiming that Steinbeck could succeed because he could choose to have Lenny do anything he could imagine, but because Steinbeck got to choose at all, even if from a limited set of options.

But the DA2 player doesn't get to do that with Hawke.  Hawke acts without the player choosing those actions.  Hawke speaks without the player choosing what Hawke will say.

Once again to "imaginary choice." I am not implying that you make your own choice in your head. I am implying that you make your own reasons and motivations in your head. In order to RP you NEED this ability.

Yes, you do.  But the assignation of motives needs to precede the dialogue selection.  you need to know why you chose a certain line in order to know which line to choose.  But DA2's obfuscatory paraphrases won't let you do that.  The only way to assign a motive that is necessarily consistent with whatever Hawke says is to know what Hawke says before creating that motive.  But without having the motive first, why did you choose that option?

DA2's paraphrases don't just break roleplaying; they're a crime against logic.